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

71–80 of 184 posts

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

#71

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

c0l0 wrote: post #16
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.

Yet still correct. I am not a Red Hat user or customer (I've been living on Debian and using it at work for nearly 15 years now), but I can perfectly understand their decision to not play along so nicely with EL rebuilders any more. Look at Amazon, who, until very recently at least, simply took what RHEL provided, used that to lure customers into their "RHEL-compatible" cloud platform, far away from any need to compe…

> Look at Amazon, who, until very recently at least, simply took what RHEL provided, used that to lure customers into their "RHEL-compatible" cloud platform, far away from any need to compensate Red Hat in any way, and contributed back into RHEL and its upstreams... what exactly?

Yes, let's do look at Amazon! Because if RH is targeting Amazon Linux, they kind of missed the mark; Amazon, like Red Hat, now simply draws from Fedora as their upstream. All this does hurts is the old versions that were already on their way out.

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

#72

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

dataangel wrote: post #8
smoldesu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a GPL violation, but it's definitely a willful misinterpretation of it's goals. They're using a lot of mental gymnastics to try and make themselves out as the good guys here: > I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own pro…

They explicitly point out all of the code is still available.

If that were materially true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

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

#73

Post by Yeroc »

bogwog wrote: post #62
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…

All very logical sounding arguments, but remember that RedHat has been extremely successful for like 30 years with that open source model. These changes came after the acquisition by IBM, meaning that it's likely some clueless MBAs trying to make the line go up in the short term so they can get their promotion, rather than any kind of wise leadership decision. The only reason Rocky and Alma (the evil villains stealin…

Yes, it's not about being able to pay the salaries of engineers. It's about being able to pay dividends to shareholders too!

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

#74

Post by housemusicfan »

jmclnx wrote: post #52
jeltz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vendor…

> 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.

I think you're wrong on this one. You seem to be mixing up UEFI vs Secure Boot. The elimination of legacy boot in favor of UEFI has nothing to do with Secure Boot being enabled. Secure Boot is a good thing. In this case Microsoft is just acting as a Certificate Authority. Mainstream distros like RHEL, Ubuntu, and Debian have signed bootloaders. They pay MS a modest fee for what is essentially CA services. If a hobbyist distro doesn't want to pay then they don't get the benefits. A lot of OSS developers don't even sign their code because they object to paying for a code signing cert. If you want to play in the walled garden you have to pay the toll. Despite this I've yet to come across a device that prohibits disabling Secure Boot.

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

#75

Post by cmiles74 »

Regardless of your or my opinion, the Vice President of Core Platforms Engineering at Red Hat seems to think that this is a fantastic idea. They read the negative coverage and thought the best move was to educate people on _why_ they are so convinced this is a fantastic idea.

I can't help but wonder what this person is thinking. I get that they look at Oracle Linux (or maybe even Rocky Linux) and think, "there's money we're losing". Is that really the whole story?

I don't see how, at the end of the day, this is going to help Red Hat. There's no way Oracle is going to start shelling out dollars to IBM for licenses. Maybe Rocky Linux will lose some customers, I doubt it's going to be enough to make it worth the time, effort and negative press that RedHat is suffering.

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

#77

Post by kryptiskt »

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…

Why did Red Hat's previous model stop working now, after 25 years of success? I'm not angry about what Red Hat is doing. I'm just puzzled and I suspect that its a very stupid move.

What Red Hat is doing now will probably increase their license sales in the short term. But they will do so by cannibalizing the entire Red Hat-compatible ecosystem. All the "freeloaders" provide RHEL with most of its share in the distro market. Kill them off and it will become a technical backwater, all the small and medium users will go somewhere else and there will be no on-ramp for new customers (as Red Hat is too technically different from what they have). It can take a while, they might get RHEL for their old systems but they'll go SUSE/Debian/Ubuntu for new stuff.

I'd say that they are literally doing what Travis CI and other companies have done in the past, they have no vision of growing their market anymore, now its all about cost cutting and squeezing the most out of their existing share while the music is playing. So no, I'm not angry about it, but on the other hand I can't see it as anything but a sign of irreversible decline.

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

#78

Post by wmf »

jvanderbot wrote: post #32
whatshisface wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The source is in there somewhere. Finding the exact source that corresponds to, say, RHEL 9.3 is intentionally difficult.

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

#79

Post by wmf »

ilyt wrote: post #39
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…

>They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? They managed to do that just fine pre IBM acquisition

Commercial pure open source was a ZIRP phenomenon.

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

#80

Post by fariszr »

cyberpunk wrote: post #53
sullivanmatt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

What about SUSE/OpenSUSE? Surely that would've gotten the green light?
Post reply on HN