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

I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 410 posts

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

#321

Post by redundantly »

cryptonector wrote: post #310
jrochkind1 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. It's not. The that IBM has here is that they're doing is not lawyers and money, it's that their customers depend on them -- vendor lock…

> people still need to put food on the table

IBM has no problem putting food on its table. It's doing so by using open source products to accomplish it.

On the other hand, IBM is trying to prevents others from putting food on their tables, using the same open source products.

IBM is painting themselves as the victim here[1]. You and many others have taken the bait.

[1] https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-sour...

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

#322

Post by pferde »

noirscape wrote: post #265
pferde wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Debian has decades old versions of packages that they'll backport security fixes into till pretty much the end of time I don't know what filthy corner of the internet you get this misinformation from, but it is completely wrong. Please stop.

To be clear, I have nothing against them doing that, I'm just saying that this is how Debian generally operates. Their extended support model still allows for backporting fixes into jessie of all things, which released almost 8 years ago. It's really good that they do that, I respect the niche they work in, but Debian has the nasty knock-on effect of having a lot of guides made for it by third parties that recommend…

If that is what you meant in your original post, then you presented it in a very manipulative, dishonest way. You alluded to Debian only offering decades old software versions and nothing newer, while the truth is that by default, users get fairly recent versions (e.g. KDE/Plasma is only one point release behind upstream), and one has to go out of their way and jump through hoops to get a version of Debian with software that is several years (not even a single decade) old.

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

#323

Post by error503 »

houseofzeus wrote: post #284
error503 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course, for GPL code, their customers could redistribute the source code. The fact that the subscription agreement does not allow this is exactly what we're discussing here.

It doesn't prevent you redistributing what you have already been given (binaries or source), it does however allow Red Hat to not give you future iterations.

They can't prevent you, because that would violate the GPL. However I'd say getting your subscription revoked as a penalty means it is not 'allowed'.

The intent of the GPL to allow distribution to third parties seems pretty clear, and a company refusing to deal with you after you exercised a right explicitly granted by the licence definitely seems like a 'dick move', despite being legal.

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

#324

Post by ptoal »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #198
microtonal wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless whether Red Hat said it or not, why not call it what it is? Not every CentOS user was a freeloader and the same is true for its spiritual successors. However, a large majority of CentOS users were not contributing back in any way to CentOS or the larger FLOSS community. Secondly, a substantial chunk of those users used CentOS because they wanted all the benefits of Red Hat EL without paying for it. That pr…

> That pretty much sounds like freeloading to me. I'll bite. The value in RHEL was supposed to be in the support. CentOS helped establish and maintain RHEL as the defacto standard that everyone targetted and prevent the development of another. I mean if Debian becomes the default that actual reduces RHEL's value proposition for their paying customers. Reinforcing a platform's dominance is contributing value.

The value in RHEL is not just in the ability to call Red Hat for support. I submit that much more of the value of RHEL is in the packaging and maintenance processes. Selecting software, making sure it's enterprise ready, patching it, backporting fixes, QA and regression testing, etc. From my view inside the machine, Red Hat is still committed to an opensource development model, and I don't see that changing any time soon. The thing Red Hat is trying to do is find the balancing point between capturing, and giving away value, as Scott McCarty explains in this post: https://opensource.com/article/21/2/differentiating-products...

Since before I became a Red Hatter, I have used CentOS for my personal servers and projects. I have struggled with CentOS Stream for that application, for example packaged kernel drivers from ELRepo. I can understand why many are upset about this. As a casual user, I am not upset, because I still have lots of options (RHEL Dev sub, Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, etc.) If I had given a lot of time and effort that benefited the EL community, and in turn, Red Hat. I would probably be more upset.

I find myself torn on this issue. On one hand, I really want there to be a vibrant Enterprise Linux community where nobody has doubts or trust issues in participating. On the other hand, I also want Red Hat to continue to have a viable business model around RHEL so that the community continues to be able to benefit from all of the expertise that it gets from all of the people who get to make it their main focus because they can rely on a steady paycheck by doing so.

I think that when Red Hat was growing fast, it was easy for them to have a laissez-faire approach to downstream rebuilds. Now that the business is contracting, people have had to start making hard decisions. There's no more difficult decision to make, than to lay off people. I would not want to have a leadership role at Red Hat right now. I don't expect it's much fun.

I really worry about the impact that this has on goodwill. I think most people at Red Hat are also concerned about this. The ecosystem around RHEL will not be the same. EPEL, ELRepo, and all of the other communities that have flourished around the downstream builds are going to be impacted. Trust, when broken, is very hard to rebuild. Jeff's comments ("fool me once...") underscore the rift that is driving away good people. I worry about the long-term effects of this. I hope that this will not "kill Enterprise Linux" as many have suggested. I do believe, though, that it has been wounded.

Disclosure: I am currently employed by Red Hat.

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

#325

Post by hhhfgshanda828 »

tcmart14 wrote: post #281
redundantly wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that said, as far as I know, one guy used the term "freeloaders" and the context wasn't clear at all who he was talking about One guy? The sentiment of CentOS users being freeloaders is shared by a lot of people, inside and outside of IBM. I remember when the original announcement came out that CentOS was being killed in favour of CentOS Stream. Lots of IBM (Red Hat) employees were defending the change by paint…

The sad part is the short nearsightedness. I know tons of RHEL engineers who only got into RHEL because they could essentially learn large parts of RHEL for free on CentOS and then go on to work professionally on RHEL. I also understand that a lot of courses to become official RHEL engineers/sysadmins use CentOS for the classes.

This is not true. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is currently available at no charge to students and non-commercial users for the use cases you mentioned. And it has always been available in that manner. It even comes with additional (paid if used commercially) red hat products on top of the OS itself.

I have a tough time believing they didn't know that considering red hat basically advertises training on the free version of RHEL. They want you to pay to take the RHCSA, which costs much more than anybody would realistically spend on a personal OS for learning.

https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-...

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

#326

Post by realitythreek »

ptoal wrote: post #324
Pet_Ant wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That pretty much sounds like freeloading to me. I'll bite. The value in RHEL was supposed to be in the support. CentOS helped establish and maintain RHEL as the defacto standard that everyone targetted and prevent the development of another. I mean if Debian becomes the default that actual reduces RHEL's value proposition for their paying customers. Reinforcing a platform's dominance is contributing value.

The value in RHEL is not just in the ability to call Red Hat for support. I submit that much more of the value of RHEL is in the packaging and maintenance processes. Selecting software, making sure it's enterprise ready, patching it, backporting fixes, QA and regression testing, etc. From my view inside the machine, Red Hat is still committed to an opensource development model, and I don't see that changing any time…

I think that Redhat’s been failing at the PR part of their business. I agree with all of your points about their motivation and value. They’re a valuable part of the community.

From an outsider’s perspective, they were merged with IBM, “killed off” CentOS, and restricted access to the sources of their distribution within a relatively short span. It just looks bad and makes everyone feel like they have to justify that Redhat is still a good company.

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

#327

Post by [deleted] »

crabbone wrote: post #282

I'm a "second generation refugee from XIV". XIV was a storage company started by Moshe Yanai, it pioneered many things in storage world. It was the catalyst that created many talented storage programmers that created their own successful companies: Infinidat, XtremIO, Weka, Elastifile, and many more. IBM acquired XIV... and ran it into the ground. To anyone who had this kind of experience with IBM the possibility of…

[deleted]

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

#328

Post by hhhfgshanda828 »

jmclnx wrote: post #35

>Red Hat seems to be upping the limit to 240 sockets per developer as of this writing -- EDIT: I read twitter, seems it may mean number of machines as opposed to open sockets. But a very confusing post. I stopped with RHEL 2 months ago at work, I use Slackware at home. What does that quote mean, if I get a RHEL developer license, am I limited to the number of open sockets ? That almost goes back to the per user licen…

Whether machines or sockets, it doesn't matter, 240 is an insanely large amount to be given out like that. I'm flabbergasted that people are complaining about this.

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

#329

Post by ruraljuror »

jlbooker wrote: post #78

The IBM MBAs have finally taken over Redhat. Anything to squeeze another dollar out, even if it's counterproductive in the long term. We knew it would happen. Honestly I'm surprised it took this long.

I hear a lot of this sentiment, but from what I see both internally at rh and news publicly available there is nothing to back up what you are saying. The decision seems to have been made by many long-tenured folk. So what if the opposite of what you’re saying is true?

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

#330

Post by [deleted] »

1oyvey wrote: post #23

I 100% support and appreciate Jeff's (and everyone's) right to take a stance when it comes to how they spend their time. We have a finite amount of time available to us, and should spend it on what's important to us, especially as that changes. See Jeff's blog post on "Saying No"[1] that really hits home with why this is important. What I'm having trouble understanding is the overwhelming use of IBM-related anecdotes…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN