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

131–140 of 184 posts

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

#131

Post by neurostimulant »

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…

Red hat does have a k8s product, right? It seems to be used by many cloud companies to offer kubernetes service.

https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-computing/opens...

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

#132

Post by Havoc »

cmiles74 wrote: post #75

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 mone…

Similar to the Reddit move. Doesn’t seem to make sense on a cost /benefit balance after factoring in PR yet they’re determined to do it

I wonder what they’re seeing/thinking that we’re not

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

#133

Post by attentive »

rafaelturk wrote: post #30

I have to give credit for RedHat it's an honest post. You may not like the overall underlying message and implications for open source, but its simple and honest addressing the why.

not that honest if it's true that "CentOS Stream updates often lag behind RHEL updates"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36487460

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

#134

Post by pabs3 »

Seems like RedHat really does not understand that open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation of a software project, including to those who will strip your trademarks, redistribute and provide services on top of the result.

https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...

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

#137

Post by creatonez »

ilyt wrote: post #41
housemusicfan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Apparently they changed their license so they can cancel it when you request sources.

When you request sources and use it to assist a RHEL rebuild project, that is.

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

#138

Post by _ea1k »

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…

This move doesn't fundamentally fix any of those issues.

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

#139

Post by creatonez »

jake_morrison wrote: post #85

Many of the leading Linux users are never going to pay for RHEL. That includes expert users who don't need enterprise support. If you make them use something else, then that will become the most battle-tested enterprise distribution. It also includes developers. If they run on your platform, then it will get native support. If you make it easy for them to test on your platform, then it will get first-class support. I…

> Open source is about community, and RedHat has made it clear that the only community they care about is companies willing to pay for expensive per-server licenses.

This is exactly what they seem to think. In this blog post, they mention that the open source community will simply revert back to being hobbyists and hackers if they don't make this change. This is because Red Hat's management right now thinks the open source community is entirely comprised of Red Hat, Red Hat customers, and random hobbyists and hackers. Other business models, and even SUSE/Ubuntu, are seemingly invisible to them.

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

#140

Post by _ea1k »

attentive wrote: post #129
cyberpunk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that if they don't fix the tool, you'll get to tell them that every week (or however often they scan).

Dealing with bad security audits isn't fun.

Post reply on HN