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

161–170 of 184 posts

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

#161

Post by rbanffy »

rwmj wrote: post #157
rbanffy wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The principle is called "upstream first". This really is the Only Sane Way To Go, as you don’t want to support your patches forever. And reapply them on every release.

It's not the way Canonical works though, so it's a clear line between what Red Hat does and what Canonical does. (SUSE is upstream first)

Canonical is a very idiosyncratic company. They mostly tend to do their own stuff their own way (like snaps), sometimes they make something incredible (such as Launchpad), and then mismanage it into irrelevance.

Eventually they'll get it right.

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

#162

Post by smarx007 »

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…

Who is going to pay for something to "become the most battle-tested enterprise distribution"? I get what you say, but this is a lot of (paid) effort many experts need to make together.

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

#163

Post by RichardCA »

mikelward wrote: post #123
gnukid wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't everyday people use CentOS Stream?

Or Fedora.

Last time I tried Fedora was FC35. I came back a few months later and tried to build a kernel module, I couldn't get the RPM's for kernel-devel and kernel-headers to line up correctly.

It's exactly these kinds of fiddly details that get weaponized when you want to derail a distro. It's not easy or frictionless anymore.

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

#165

Post by RichardCA »

salawat wrote: post #158
bbatha wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...And when you graze your Cattle on someone else's fields, you pay through the nose for it! Best damn business innovation ever, renting people shovels to dig themselves a hole with!

It's a classic IBM strategy that goes all the way back to the old-school days of mainframes and timesharing. And they would love to bring those days back. But they can't because AWS beat them to it and now they have to live in that world.

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

#166

Post by awill »

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…

But the model didn't stop working.

Red Hat is more profitable than ever. It's about wanting EVEN MORE.

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

#167

Post by SSLy »

bonzini wrote: post #149
rincebrain wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I am not even sure that IBM's cloud made the short list.

Probably not https://www.redhat.com/en/partners/certified-cloud-and-servi...

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

#168

Post by rektide »

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?

Valid notion. I don't really know the impact to top of funnel, but it seems like such a gamble to me to tighten the pipeline so much, exclude so many from starting.

It's starting to change, but for years people would look at me like I was crazy for running Debian/unstable aka Debian/sid on my machines/personal servers. Being willing to have volatile systems is a big barrier. Only having "dogfood this wip" or "pay us" as the two options is a radical ask, one that doesn't really seem survivable to me (rh/centos won't go away, but their mindshare seems likely to implode to me).

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

#169

Post by awill »

bonzini wrote: post #150
_cenw wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You're listing CentOS Stream as a positive thing IBM created?

No. That was their excuse for cancelling CentOS. If you remember, it was universally unpopular.

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

#170

Post by awill »

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?

Speaking for myself, I have a home server. I bought it almost 9 years ago, and the server (haswell-grade xeon) is still perfectly ok for home-server stuff, like a NAS and plex. When I set up the server, I picked CentOS 7 because I wanted a simple, boring OS that got updates for a long time. Sure, I could have used Debian or Ubuntu, and done an OS upgrade every 3-5 years, but I just wanted to avoid it.

Last year, with RH cancelling CentOS, I switched to Rocky expecting another 8+ years of updates. We'll see how that pans out.

Post reply on HN