I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux) • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#211

Post by chasil » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

geerlingguy wrote: post #180

parasense wrote: post #169

To quote Jeff: > Here's how it used to work: > Red Hat would grab a copy of Linux They would add magic sauce that makes it Red Hat Enterprise Linux > They would release a new version. > They would update a source code repository with all the data required to build it from scratch A few remarks. The "add magic sauce" part is gone, all the secret sauce, or black box machinery is out in the open in CentOS stream. Red Ha…

Two thoughts: > The process of replicating RHEL is so much easier today than ever before. Doing so bug-for-bug requires more effort than it did a few weeks ago. And they're basically doing that work in parallel with Red Hat itself (duplication of effort). Also, making a change like this (forcing Rocky and AlmaLinux to change in the middle of the 9.x release cycle), when the previous change (killing CentOS) was _also_…

I'm not certain that much more effort is required.

Untraceable uploads with Onionshare over a Tor browser would conceal the origin of source RPMs that did not bear fingerprints.

Once captured, all that is really required is the updated SPEC file, and any modified sources or patches (if I remember my RPM internals correctly).

Alma could maintain such an Onionshare instance. If the SPEC and patch files are specifically GPL, I'm not sure that Alma could be compelled to forego them.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#212

Post by justinclift » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:32 PM UTC

neverartful wrote: post #164

justinclift wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Canonical's Ubuntu Why the suggestion for Canonical? They've also been doing shady shit again recently. For instance, adding advertisements for their products to existing cli tools. I haven't been tracking SUSE for a few years now, but they're they're not doing shady shit? Hopefully there's at least one good option in commercial-linux-land. ;)

Probably because Canonical does promise to make their software freely available to the whole world.

Hmmm. "freely available to the whole world". Is that really the wording they use?

Asking because their recent advertising added to the apt cli is promoting some kind of security packages. Seems like people need to pay for those?

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#213

Post by jrochkind1 » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:37 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #151

cryptonector wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wishy-washy language there about skirting lines doesn't make that a very good analysis. You can use others' GPL code in your products and charge money for it. You have to "publish" the GPL'ed sources (and any sources of yours that derive from GPL'ed code) on demand -- publish as in: if someone asks, you have to give it to them, but there's no requirement that there be a public download page or anything like that, and…

Yup. It goes from "These businesses are abusing the GPL and software freedom!" to "Well, they are following the GPL but that doesn't result in what I want!" This is why we have GPL 2 and 3, for example. Disclaimer: I work at Red Hat, but nowhere near RHEL.

it's not just an issue of what "I" want, it's an issue of what the GPL is intended to do. If it doesn't result in the four freedoms, but the GPL allows it, then the GPL has failed to do what it was designed to do.

From the text of the GPL itself:

> Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

RedHat is trying to sell software that is licensed under the GPL -- which has to be, because the base of it was written by others and the only reason RedHat is even allowed to use it or sell it is under the GPL -- and try to prevent users from having the freedom to re-distribute the GPL software they received, with or without their own modifications.

They are trying to subvert the GPL. They know they are. That's why they have all this language where they say they aren't intending to limit your rights under the GPL -- it's just that they'll refuse to have you as a customer if you exersize them, that's all.

Whether it is legal or not is a question for laywers. If it's legal, and it succesfully prevents users from redistributing GPL RedHat, then it's an accidental loophole, and has subverted the GPL's intent and design, as stated in the GPL itslef.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#214

Post by cryptonector » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:37 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #203

cryptonector wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wishy-washy language there about skirting lines doesn't make that a very good analysis. You can use others' GPL code in your products and charge money for it. You have to "publish" the GPL'ed sources (and any sources of yours that derive from GPL'ed code) on demand -- publish as in: if someone asks, you have to give it to them, but there's no requirement that there be a public download page or anything like that, and…

The GPL does quite intentionally not require you to provide a public download page (or git access, etc), and this was more or less discussed and a conscious decision by those who came up with the GPL, agreed. Albeit in pre-widespread-internet days when a "public download page" wasn't a thing yet (and the equivalents were much more expensive, thus why they might not have wanted to require that burden). But still. I ag…

> But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended to do.

Does "Nope nope nope" answer the first question with "no", but then the "I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not" answer it with "maybe"? Or was the "nope" think just a wish? I believe the GPL is silent on that. You might be right that this would be an inadvertent loophole, but as you know, it's not trivial to fix this sort of problem.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#215

Post by neurostimulant » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

CrLf wrote: post #172

Why can't AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux drop their bug-for-bug compatibility commitment, and become stable distributions in their own right, based on CentOS Stream? I think this ecosystem would gain a lot from these distributions having their own identity, instead of being just 1:1 copies of RHEL. Change my mind. ;)

Many enterprise apps are distributed as binary release that compatible with RHEL, and people want to run them without using RHEL, especially in situations when it doesn't make sense to purchase RHEL licenses.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#216

Post by jrochkind1 » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #214

jrochkind1 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL does quite intentionally not require you to provide a public download page (or git access, etc), and this was more or less discussed and a conscious decision by those who came up with the GPL, agreed. Albeit in pre-widespread-internet days when a "public download page" wasn't a thing yet (and the equivalents were much more expensive, thus why they might not have wanted to require that burden). But still. I ag…

> But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended…

Nope nope nope means this is a different quality of thing, the things you are trying to put in the same category are in different categories.

the GPL, by it's own text explaining itself, is intended to ensure that users of GPL software always have the right to re-distribute it. It says that right in it.

If your point is that IBM has enough lawyers and money to prevent users from redistributing GPL software, and they may have figured out how to exersize a loophole that will be difficult to do anything about it, especially cause of all those lawyers and money... right, indeed, sure.

If you are suggesting that we should all consider this just fine, and you don't care what the GPL intended to do, and you don't think anyone else should either, and we should all aspire to make money by getting away with subverting the GPL... okay, thanks for sharing? But as for me: nope nope nope.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#217

Post by cturner » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #181

cturner wrote: post #161

RHEL has a major ecosystem advantage related to drivers that they may not be aware of. They risk ruining this, as I will try to explain. At the time industry started to take Linux seriously, RHEL was the dominant distro. As a result, and by accident, RHEL+derivs became the primary target for commercial hardware drivers. As an example - it's easier to get obscure low-latency network and packet-capture cards working on…

If you don't mind, what makes more niche hardware drivers work / build better against RHEL? I suppose RHEL uses basically the same kernel, with patches that don't alter its interface too substantially. So I presume that a driver in source form, or even partly in binary blob form, should build and work approximately equally well with any stock kernel. Beside the driver developers apparently using RHEL / CentOS (so on…

It is both drivers and the userland tools that you get in the tarball. This stuff is often developed by people with a focus on hardware. They will build something to work well on their machine but may never have used a different linux distro. The userland tools might assume compile options in libraries will be as they are in redhat. There will be hard coded paths where there shouldn’t be. The source may not be available, it might be static binaries. That kind of stuff.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#218

Post by yrro » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

westurner wrote: post #25

mynameisvlad wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they’re within their right to pull support, but people are equally within their right to point out how that is shooting themselves and the RHEL communities in the foot.

This. What a good opportunity to compare: the (GitOps!) packaging workflows, build server security, software supply chain integrity controls, issue tracking / triage, wiki, documentation, kernel patching, cloud fuzzing / integration testing, and baseline MAC and DAC policies of the stable kernel patchset OSes within budget for schools, hobbyists, after workers, and corporations who can and for some services maybe sho…

> which we should probably have for browser tabs, too

This would be incredible

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#219

Post by jzb » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #206

jzb wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me preface this by saying, Jeff owes Red Hat nothing and he's free to stop "supporting" RHEL for any or no reason at all. That said, "grab a copy of Linux" seriously, gloriously, hilariously handwaves away so many things that Red Hat does to create a RHEL release. Red Hat pulls together hundreds or thousands of upstreams to create RHEL, participates in many of them, tests all that together , helps partners certif…

I agree with most of what you said, but: > If that angers you, I heartily encourage folks to build Debian up as the standard we all certify against. Or start your own business that overtakes Red Hat and earns the place RHEL has today. This strikes me as a variation of the "if you don't like Apple or Google's rules, make your own phone" or "if you don't like Youtube's content policies, then start your own video compan…

It's also, as has been demonstrated, wildly impractical for Red Hat to continue exactly as before without others undermining its business.

The thing is that everybody is only lobbying Red Hat to make concessions, but nobody's going after Oracle or Rocky or Alma or other clones to say "hey, cool it. Red Hat's trying to keep a business going here. You're undermining their business. If you keep this up, they're going to make it harder for everybody to use a free RHEL for non-business situations."

The difference, too, is that I (probably) have a business relationship with Apple or Google if I'm complaining about their wares. When I complain about iOS or Android it's because I've purchased one of those phones (or want to) but it has a defect (in my opinion) or user-hostile anti-feature preventing me from getting the value I paid for.

This isn't that. This largely seems to be people who are not paying for RHEL demanding Red Hat allow them to continue not paying for it but receive its value.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#220

Post by pnutjam » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 5:45 PM UTC

Yeroc wrote: post #132

dmix wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will turn people off Red Hat Will it turn paying customers off Red Hat? (Honest question)

Most likely yes. Can't speak for other organizations but the one I work for licenses RHEL on our critical servers and uses CentOS/Alma on all non-critical infrastructure. Obviously the reason that is done is because it's easy to support what's essentially a single OS. With this new change, if Alma/Rocky go away we'll be looking at either Suse or Ubuntu most likely and RHEL will go away completely to be replaced with…

OpenSuse LEAP is 100% binary compatible with SLES. You can build an entire dev environment with LEAP, clone it and run a script to make it SLES.

Ubuntu is pushing snaps to hard IMHO. Suse is moving towards immutable OS with flatpacks, but doing so in a much more responsible manner that is not trying to lock down the ecosystem.