Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A response to the git.centos.org changes

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 184 posts

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#31

Post by rbanffy »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #26
jmclnx wrote: post #14

>Red Hat uses and will always use an open source development model Yes, I do not mean to sound harsh but I do not know how say this in a nice way. To me, this means we will still happily take work from our volunteers, but we will restrict other people from using this work so we can get more $. But thank you volunteers for keeping our payroll low and helping out our stockholders. I really think this is another small s…

> To me, this means we will still happily take work from our volunteers, but we will restrict other people from using this work so we can get more $. That's just a willful misconstruction - they're absolutely contributing to upstream, as the post makes clear.

And it’s not like the upstream is scattered around and hard to find - he singles out Fedora and CentOS.

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#32

Post by jvanderbot »

whatshisface wrote: post #15
dataangel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? I'm pretty sure if all paid Redhat developers stopped contributing it would be a massive blow to the Linux ecosystem that would not readily be replaced by volunteers. They employ people who work on every fundamental pillar of kernel space and userspace. Even if the fired devs wanted to continue contributing, it would probably be reduced hours compared to what they cont…

We have been told that RH's business model is selling support for a complex and constantly improving platform which is given away for free. Redhat is supposed to represent having someone to call when you don't want to bring in a consultant or hire a Debian expert, not a "seat license for Linux." Part of the difficulty that RH is facing is in trying to undo the expectations set by years and years of marketing - we wer…

So is it not true that

> There is CentOS Stream the binary deliverable, and CentOS Stream the source repository. The CentOS Stream gitlab source is where we build RHEL releases, in the open for all to see. To call RHEL “closed source” is categorically untrue and inaccurate.

Where I could just go get their OS myself?

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#33

Post by sullivanmatt »

cyberpunk wrote: post #25

I genuinely don't understand why anyone is using rhel or rhel-derived distros anymore. 'we' (and by 'we' -- I can only speak for the small slice of uk/eu companies I've worked at for the last ~18 or so years) were /forced/ to use redhat when running stuff like SAP, IBM WebSphere, Oracle, various terrible BI systems, ERP stuff, and so on for 'support'. Then the cloud happened, and rhel/centos came along initally as we…

I'm not even a user of rhel but the difference is: security patches. Enterprise uses rhel because they fix or triage nearly every vuln, every time. If you work for a company with extremely stringent security requirements, or sell to government entities, rhel and its derivatives (CentOS/Amazon Linux 2, etc) are basically the only way you can clear their requirements.

Debian (and by extension, Ubuntu) chooses to not fix a significant amount of security issues. This makes sense given their business models, but is an unworkable position for a huge number of enterprises that depend on Linux. Example: https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2021-45464

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#34

Post by msla »

jeltz wrote: post #21
jmclnx wrote: post #14

>Red Hat uses and will always use an open source development model Yes, I do not mean to sound harsh but I do not know how say this in a nice way. To me, this means we will still happily take work from our volunteers, but we will restrict other people from using this work so we can get more $. But thank you volunteers for keeping our payroll low and helping out our stockholders. I really think this is another small s…

What takeover? While I agree with you that Red hat are being scummy here there are plenty of non-corporate distros like Debian and Arch which are very healthy. I do not see any takeover, just the usual greedy corporations which have always existed.

> What takeover?

The one people have been predicting for decades because they refuse to understand how Linux works and/or they want attention.

None of this is new. None of this is even hugely interesting. Red Hat is one distromaker out of many, and nothing makes anyone use them or their products. Trying to conflate one distro with Linux as a whole is common among people who are either ignorant or attempting to troll.

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#35

Post by housemusicfan »

dsr_ wrote: post #11

It's nice that they are clear, now: No Red Hat unless you pay them for it. If you pay them for it, you can't redistribute it.

> If you pay them for it, you can't redistribute it.

Citation please? I've sat in enough conference rooms full of lawyers to know the GPL explicitly forbids this, so it would be bordering on insane if this is what they're proposing.

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#36

Post by ilyt »

cyberpunk wrote: post #25

I genuinely don't understand why anyone is using rhel or rhel-derived distros anymore. 'we' (and by 'we' -- I can only speak for the small slice of uk/eu companies I've worked at for the last ~18 or so years) were /forced/ to use redhat when running stuff like SAP, IBM WebSphere, Oracle, various terrible BI systems, ERP stuff, and so on for 'support'. Then the cloud happened, and rhel/centos came along initally as we…

I know why they use RHEL - support is apparently good and not every corpo wants to keep some linux experts on payroll to fix the rare issues that need a bit more expertise. And they keep old versiond of Red Hat updated for longer so you old crusty enterprise garbage can stay garbage few years longer and claim "but OS is updated" in audit.

I have no idea who in their right mind would use derivative, it has zero benefits and is just build worse than vanilla Debian.

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#38

Post by jeltz »

yding wrote: post #24

Unpopular opinion: I see their point. When Larry Ellison created Oracle Linux, he said this explicitly: given RH's then model, Oracle can take RedHat's work for free and sell it for money.

Popular opinion: writing "unpopular opinion" is just annoying. Just write what you think instead of pretending to be some sort of underdog.

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#39

Post by ilyt »

dataangel wrote: post #5
leetrout wrote: post #2

> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity. So... completely tone deaf.

They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? I'm pretty sure if all paid Redhat developers stopped contributing it would be a massive blow to the Linux ecosystem that would not readily be replaced by volunteers. They employ people who work on every fundamental pillar of kernel space and userspace. Even if the fired devs wanted to continue contributing, it would probably be reduced hours compared to what they cont…

>They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them?

They managed to do that just fine pre IBM acquisition

Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes

#40

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

cyberpunk wrote: post #25

I genuinely don't understand why anyone is using rhel or rhel-derived distros anymore. 'we' (and by 'we' -- I can only speak for the small slice of uk/eu companies I've worked at for the last ~18 or so years) were /forced/ to use redhat when running stuff like SAP, IBM WebSphere, Oracle, various terrible BI systems, ERP stuff, and so on for 'support'. Then the cloud happened, and rhel/centos came along initally as we…

>What's rhel got that debian doesn't? Or ubuntu?

Short version:

https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata

https://catalog.redhat.com/hardware/search?type=Server

Post reply on HN