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

51–60 of 184 posts

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

#51

Post by cassepipe »

rgbrenner wrote: post #20

We don’t simply take upstream packages and rebuild them Are they seriously claiming they contribute to every one of the tens of thousands of packages they include in their repo? I'd like to see some proof of that. If they're taking any open source app, and just including it in their repo without at least 1 RH patch.. then they are "simply tak[ing] upstream packages and rebuild[ing] them". RedHat absolutely makes mone…

But then aren't they themselves contributing to projects like Fedora and adding value to it in return ? I don't know anything but it seems that they are also contributing to the ecosystem. Plus it's not like we lacked free quality linux distros, do we ? If you feel like you are being taken adavantage of, what prevents you to contribute to say Debian instead ? I am learning programming and most students like me runnning linux don't run RHEL or CentOs and and frankly barely even know acknowledge their existence.

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

#52

Post by jmclnx »

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.

I am pointing out what I see as a trend. Linux hardware seems to be on the way to a lockdown by companies. How many proprietary bolbs are now needed to run Linux on many Laptops.

This is a failure of the Linux Foundation to push back on proprietary hardware vendors, one blaring example is Nvidia. Even Linus has commened on Nvidia.

The Foundation should stop allowing proprietary hardware in Linux, instead these vendors donate $ to the Foundation and we are stuck using this hardware.

Another example is Secure Boot, some laptop manufactures are no longer allowing Legacy Boot. Were is the Foundation on this issue. Instead Microsoft donates large amounts and nothing is said about who signs the keys. It is just about impossible for many people to install Linux (or a BSD) on some new hardware without jumping through Secure Boot Loops.

And we have Intel ME, totally closed, the Foundation did nothing to complain and open that up either.

I could go on all day, and I am sure others can bring up many of these issues I know little about.

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

#53

Post by cyberpunk »

sullivanmatt wrote: post #33
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 fi…

I work for a eu government with extremely high security requirements (in the national identity / IDP / health space).

We actually _CANNOT_ use redhat for compliance reasons.

(We're using ubuntu LTS as it goes)

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

#54

Post by throwaway_62022 »

rgbrenner wrote: post #20

We don’t simply take upstream packages and rebuild them Are they seriously claiming they contribute to every one of the tens of thousands of packages they include in their repo? I'd like to see some proof of that. If they're taking any open source app, and just including it in their repo without at least 1 RH patch.. then they are "simply tak[ing] upstream packages and rebuild[ing] them". RedHat absolutely makes mone…

In general I think, if there is a package which is part of RHEL, there is an engineer working on it and contributes patches and is well versed in the code of it. Otherwise if there is a bug reported by paying customer, they won't be able to fix it. Opening a bug against any of supported Red Hat products by paying customers have consequences and it isn't like a bug on gnome or kde that goes unanswered/unresolved for years.

But RHEL by default doesn't have as many packages as Debian or even Fedora. See recent announcement about LibreOffice. Red hat can't by default ship a package that it can't fix and support.

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

#55

Post by robinsonb5 »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #17
belltaco wrote: post #6

> 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 Doesn't Red Hat do the same thing for many packages? Do they substantially contribute to every single project they distribute? I wonder if this w…

No; Red Hat packages things - the rebuilders are just taking all the packages and rebranding. More analogous (perhaps? I don't know) would be if someone forked an open source project you maintained and slapped their own brand on it.

It came as slightly bitter pill to swallow when I realised that one of the most important freedoms granted by open source licenses is the freedom to do something you might not like.

If you really don't like it, to the point where it's an actual problem, then it's probably a hint that you picked the wrong license.

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

#56

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

cyberpunk wrote: post #43
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

So LTS support and ... runs on everything the linux kernel does? I don't understand your answer, that is nothing you can't get elsewhere ?

The Linux kernel is not the point. The point is that RHEL has what you need to make sure that the P440ar Smart Array Controller in your HPE DL360 G9 still works properly and that the package from HPE that supplies the runtime tools for it works, along with the utilities that allow you to upgrade your iLO firmware etc. and will qualify that configuration across OS versions and releases.

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

#57

Post by Yeroc »

sullivanmatt wrote: post #33
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 fi…

That, and if you need to run some COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software package chances are the vendor will only support it on RHEL (or CentOS). However, many of these vendors also support Ubuntu LTS or Suse Enterprise now so there are (usually) a couple of Linux-based alternatives.

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

#58

Post by smoldesu »

orf wrote: post #27

A lot of comments on this topic seem at odds with reality. If you accept that it takes a lot of effort to produce what Red Hat produces and you accept that you cannot buy food with a list of your open source contributions, then the people who work for Red Hat need to be compensated in some way. If your answer to this is that there is a big, distributed pool of people willing to do this work instead of Red Hat then yo…

It's the other way around - if Red Hat wants to contribute to GPL software, they have to reconcile the legal realities of the situation with their business model. If it's not viable for them to contribute like this, then they shouldn't. They're binding themselves to the conditions of the GPL by contributing to it though, and shouldn't be granted exemption for being a business. If sharing their changes out of goodwill isn't their prerogative, maybe they should offer enterprise support to redistribution-optional systems like Minix instead.

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

#59

Post by zilti »

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…

Canonical is a shit company, way shittier than RedHat. Use Tumbleweed and be done with it :)

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

#60

Post by cyberpunk »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #56
cyberpunk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So LTS support and ... runs on everything the linux kernel does? I don't understand your answer, that is nothing you can't get elsewhere ?

The Linux kernel is not the point. The point is that RHEL has what you need to make sure that the P440ar Smart Array Controller in your HPE DL360 G9 still works properly and that the package from HPE that supplies the runtime tools for it works, along with the utilities that allow you to upgrade your iLO firmware etc. and will qualify that configuration across OS versions and releases.

Ah fair point, random(ish) vendor crapware utilities like that surely work better on rhel. Client libs for HSMs spring to mind too. Fortunately, not many of us are running bare metal anymore. Do you think it make any sense to use in 'the cloud' though?
Post reply on HN