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

141–150 of 184 posts

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

#141

Post by Errsher »

NekkoDroid wrote: post #117
housemusicfan wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 v…

I have a laptop from 2k15 with Arch and secure boot. Since Arch doesn't have anything signed you can't even load the LiveISO without disabling secure boot, but what I was able to do was to sign everything myself + have the MS secure boot keys (or whatever they are called). This would allow me to dual boot with Win + Linux both using secure boot, which is nice to know for a certain game that insist on an overly restri…

Do you have links to any good documentation on self-signing everything necessary to run linux properly with secure boot?

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

#142

Post by biimugan »

What is the evidence that the proceeds from contracts gained from this change will actually go towards the people doing the work? That's what I always wonder. After all, Red Hat also recently cut hundreds of jobs, similar to other tech companies. Those other tech companies also have their own just-so stories to try to explain why they're making certain decisions. Certainly most of those other companies don't have a large open source business in the same way as Red Hat. That they're all cutting (in one way or another) but all have different excuses is interesting. I do find it pretty hard to believe that the morality and ethics of properly paying engineers for their work has much, if anything, to do with it though.

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

#144

Post by prepend »

jacooper wrote: post #103
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…

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.

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

It used to be worth it for 20+ years. Now something changed.

For my servers I used to use 95% centos, 5% rhel. Now I’ll use 0% rhel.

I didn’t need support for most servers but I liked having comparability for when things grew into needing it.

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

#145

Post by bbatha »

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 strategy is doubling down on the real reason that 3 is killing them: price. Their pricing structure in fundamentally incompatible with cloud native workloads. We treat workloads like cattle scaling them quickly and on demand to OS counts never dreamed of decades ago.

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

#147

Post by syslog »

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 2) - we once fell into this marketing trap of "Oracle runs best on Oracle". If it only were true!

We had Oracle databases running on Oracle Solaris running on Oracle SPARC servers, because the bosses were convinced of the synergies. When the problems started (with Solaris zone clusters) it was a happy merry-go-round of fingerpointing between Oracle support groups.

Oracle is on a rather short list of companies I'll try to avoid doing business with if at all possible.

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

#148

Post by syslog »

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…

I honestly thought distro wars were a thing of the past and settled a decade ago.

And by settled I mean "who cares as long as it's not Windows?".

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

#149

Post by bonzini »

rincebrain wrote: post #128
jabl wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I'll (mostly) copy my reply from there: RHEL guests are supported on RHEL host but also on Windows, ESX, Amazon and Google clouds, and a few more.

Non-RHEL hosts are only supported is Red Hat has someone to talk to at the vendor or cloud provider, so that they can debug stuff that breaks only in their environment and can't be reproduced. This is done to cannot guarantee the level of support that customers expect but very few cloud provider can provide that. I am not even sure that IBM's cloud made the short list.

On other unsupported hosts we will ask the customer to reproduce on a supported host if we think the host is the culprit.

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

#150

Post by bonzini »

_cenw wrote: post #97
orf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not in their sales funnel and lots of things look healthy from the outside that actually are not.

it seems to correlate more with the ibm acquisition

People were expecting IBM to swallow Red Hat in 3 years. After 4 years some parts of RHEL have been opened (Fedora ELN, CentOS Stream) and some have been closed, overall I would call that a success even if IBM was behind this decision...
Post reply on HN