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

101–110 of 184 posts

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

#101

Post by catboybotnet »

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…

In the web hosting world, RHEL and its downstreams like CentOS (7 is still in use... just had to spin up a server for a customer with it a few days ago) Alma, Rocky, etc. are still king. Especially with software like cPanel, which exclusively works with Alma (previously, exclusively CentOS). Getting people to even upgrade to Alma 8 is enough of a pain, I don't see why any of these folks would move away from cPanel/Alma now.

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

#102

Post by fariszr »

busterarm wrote: post #48

It's funny. We have something like 10^5 machines all on CentOS and a decent chunk where support is important and we pay for RHEL as well. I've been through a few firms like this all operating this way since 2007 or so... We were looking at Rocky Linux, but that no longer makes sense in light of recent news. So along with moving all of that CentOS infrastructure to something else, it no longer makes sense to stick wit…

From Red hats point of view, RHEL shouldn't be an option without paying for it, it's why they stopped CentOS and now git.centos.org. And as mentioned in the article, people just using clones as free RHEL were way too many for the user/sales flow to be worth it.

It's basically if a car company had a free car on every road, hoping it would drive people to buy a car for themselves, but people are just using it as their car, avoiding buying one because the free one exists.

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

#103

Post by jacooper »

rektide wrote: post #84
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting because if RHEL had no value add nobody would pay for it and nobody would be angry about this change. All of these angry posts are proof in a way that they are putting in valuable work.

RHEL was only used & adopted because everyday people could use it. Then when they had jobs at their enterprise, they could bring what they knew with them. If RHEL is only for paying people, as McGrath from the pulpit so expounds, most people are gonna leave. The value was having a community, a good path, that extended from open source to paid support. If McGrath blows up one end of the continuum, the other end will c…

If you've read the article, its clearly stated that many more people were just using CentOS as free RHEL, never needing to pay anything because it gives them everything they need for free.

It wasn't worth putting up with so many free users for a paid product, just to have a small minority actually pay anything.

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

#104

Post by deadbolt »

housemusicfan wrote: post #35
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.

See (d)

Unauthorized Use of Subscription Services. Any unauthorized use of the Subscription Services is a material breach of the Agreement. Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: (a) only purchasing or renewing Subscription Services based on some of the total number of Units, (b) splitting or applying one Software Subscription to two or more Units, (c) providing Subscription Services (in whole or in part) to third parties, (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software or (e) using Subscription Services to support or maintain any non-Red Hat Software products without purchasing Subscription Services for each such instance (collectively, “Unauthorized Subscription Services Uses”).

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

#105

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

masukomi wrote: post #50
keikobadthebad wrote: post #3

Sounds like they think of Rocky as the enemy, 'under no obligation' to make it easier, 'rebuilding code' is a 'threat'... I have a project in RHEL that they 'rebuild' but I don't see that as a 'threat'. They want to be a little bit more careful with dogma that makes sense to their management, will get them patted on the head there, but is just nonsense seen from other perspectives - like my perspective contributing t…

> I have a project in RHEL that they 'rebuild' but I don't see that as a 'threat'. that's only a relevant statement IF you are trying to make your living off of it and they're rebuilding it without compensating you. they're not saying rebuilding their opensource packages is a threat to the creators. They're saying people freely distributing the things they pay people to make is a threat to their ability to continue t…

But Red Hat was aware of that risk but made the decision to repackage and live off other people's work a few decades ago - and it paid off.

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

#106

Post by neurostimulant »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #49
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.

Arch is probably the most bazaar operating system in existence. AFAIK all of its developers are volunteers, and thousands of users take an active part in creating and maintaining ~75k of (non-orphan) packages for it. AUR has a very low barrier of entry — you just need an account — and still all packages I use are of good quality (the most popular are usually excellent, and with much less bureaucracy than other distro…

Many components inside a modern linux distros are actually developed by people employed by big corporation. Take systemd for example, where a huge portion of its core developers are employed by red hat, microsoft and facebook. The distro itself may be run entirely by volunteers, but the softwares they packaged might not be developed entirely by volunteers.

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

#107

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

busterarm wrote: post #48

It's funny. We have something like 10^5 machines all on CentOS and a decent chunk where support is important and we pay for RHEL as well. I've been through a few firms like this all operating this way since 2007 or so... We were looking at Rocky Linux, but that no longer makes sense in light of recent news. So along with moving all of that CentOS infrastructure to something else, it no longer makes sense to stick wit…

Similar here, except we also have Ubuntu systems (and a few others). What happens next is very simple, it will just take some time.

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

#108

Post by neurostimulant »

fariszr wrote: post #83

> There was a time, not too long ago, that Red Hat found value in the work done by rebuilders like CentOS. We pushed our SRPMs out to git.centos.org in a neat package that made them easy to rebuild; we even de-branded it for them. More recently, we have determined that there isn’t value in having a downstream rebuilder. > The generally accepted position that these free rebuilds are just funnels churning out RHEL expe…

This sounds like the argument video game companies like to use to justify DRM to reduce piracy. The question is, as they push for more intrusive DRM, how many of those people pirating their games actually converts into paying customers? How many existing customers they piss off who swore they'll never buy their games again?

In red hat case, how many of those freeloading users using alma and rocky linux will actually convert into red hat customer? How many red hat customers they piss off because they also use those distros and decided to transition away from red hat in the future?

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

#109

Post by schlauerfox »

If this were taken at face value, then they should have ended CentOS instead of trying to preserve a trademark with a drastically different product.

They built their world on the work of others shared in kind under the GPL, what are they thinking at this new IBM wearing RedHat's face?

To Quote: The modern definition defines free software by whether or not the recipient has the following four freedoms:[8]

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

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

#110

Post by m4r71n »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #9

So they take stuff other people wrote... and they take it for free... and it's ok... then they might do a patch here or there... and if someone takes that, it's somehow bad, because they don't get the money for that? What if they don't patch anything, aren't they just "rebuilders" too?

So what's stopping Alma/Rocky from just "taking that same stuff other people wrote" and not bothering with RHEL at all?
Post reply on HN