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

121–130 of 184 posts

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

#121

Post by [deleted] »

kryptiskt wrote: post #77
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 m…

[deleted]

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

#122

Post by stbenjam »

rektide wrote: post #64

The claim here that their sources are available seems like it probably has a lot of asterisks to it? Or is this kerfuffle really over nothing? McGrath seems to be fessing up to removing access to binaries, and has his hard-truth he wants to try to deal, but but it seems like the story goes significantly deeper or the anger/frustration wouldn't be anywhere near as high. It's not clear to me from a quick browse of the…

Binaries weren't removed, RHEL binaries were never available on git.centos.org. The source for RHEL is available via CentOS Stream. The only thing missing is the checkpoints in CentOS Stream where they decide it's suitable to send to RHEL, which makes it harder for the rebuilders to build the exact same thing.

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

#123

Post by mikelward »

gnukid wrote: post #90
rektide wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can't everyday people use CentOS Stream?

Or Fedora.

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

#124

Post by [deleted] »

orf wrote: post #94
rektide wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do everyday people need an enterprise Linux distro? Why not use one of their other everyday-people focused distributions?

[deleted]

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

#125

Post by hdaz0017 »

gnukid wrote: post #90
rektide wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can't everyday people use CentOS Stream?

[flagged]

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

#127

Post by raincom »

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…

You must be paying support for 1000 machines, say $1M in total. Redhat wants at least $20M for 10^5 machines. Maybe, they don't want you as a customer.

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

#128

Post by rincebrain »

jabl wrote: post #82
kryptiskt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

For a somewhat simplistic explanation, RHEL became very successful as a tool to replace proprietary RISC Unix servers (often running Oracle DB) with x86(-64) and Linux, offering a traditional "enterprise" support model those proprietary UNIX customers were used to. So what has changed? 1. The above market is pretty much "saturated" in the sense there aren't many proprietary UNIX systems left to convert to x86+RHEL. S…

re:3, In a previous thread about this, someone said that RHEL only would make deals with cloud providers to run RHEL licenses prepackaged if the whole stack was RHEL, and obviously, if the cloud provider is not already running RHEL everywhere, that doesn't work out so well.

(I have no personal experience trying to run anything like this, this is purely citing a previous comment made.)

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

#129

Post by attentive »

cyberpunk wrote: post #70
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

t.b.h. all this tells me is that your pentesters are bad.

Bingo. We don't get to choose them, though, and they hold the strings on the certifications that our business needs. Sometimes it's easier to bend.

If they make a claim that some package has CVE and you can demonstrate that to be false as per official distro changelogs etc they can go hike.

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

#130

Post by attentive »

nartz wrote: post #29

Whats said in this blogpost may be 100% true, and of course red hat does do a lot for the community, but unfortunately the damage is done. Its always going to feel like: * Red Hat was a bastion of open source * Red Hat sold out to IBM * Red Hat stopped being Red Hat, and started being IBM by focusing on $$ over open source * Red Hat reputation degrades as $$ are put first, killing off centos, now this, just downhill…

Is it true though? - he says "when we develop fixes for issues in RHEL, we don't just apply them to RHEL - they are applied upstream first, to projects like Fedora, CentOS Stream or the kernel project itself, and we then backport them".

That contradicts to reports like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36484207

"Additionally, CentOS Stream updates often lag behind RHEL updates. This is because Red Hat won't commit an embargoed security update to CentOS Stream until after it ships in RHEL, so the developers responsible for the update will sometimes forget to commit it to CentOS Stream until a week or two after it's shipped. You end up in a weird position where you get most updates faster than RHEL users, but you often have to wait to get critical security updates. "

Post reply on HN