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

401–410 of 410 posts

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

#401

Post by otterley »

isityouyesitsme wrote: post #400
otterley wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Moving support into localities for better servicing the customer is fine. This isn't the trend. You and others in this thread are concluding that the choices provided are bad ones based solely on the locations of those choices, despite there being no good reason why these people cannot provide the same level of service that could be provided elsewhere (communication issues are curable by hiring the right people, an…

I didn't flag it. I'm not improperly judging anything. I have lived this for too long. "No good reason" is a fantasy. There is "no good reason" other than the real world standing in the way, which is an economic motivation you keep neglecting, not a racial one. You are either a racist, unintelligent, or else ignorant. You do not write as though you're unintelligent. I do not personally assume that people are racist b…

You're not wrong that economics motivate the choice of where to hire for a customer support function. Customer service is a cost center, so naturally companies will choose to hire where labor is cheap but the job can still be done. If it's not being done well, that's a problem to point out. But that's not what happened in this conversation.

To reiterate, here is how this thread went, in context:

>> I think you are underestimating the value of providing support to commercial users.

> You mean, the valuable support they are increasingly shifting to Colombia, Philippines and India?

The bottom reply added no value to the conversation; it made no substantive claim. Since it lacked any substance, the reply merely insinuated that people from these countries cannot provide support at a level that people from other countries (such as the USA) can, and without any explanation as to why. This is the modus operandi of racists who want to choose not to be overt - leaving it to the reader to implicitly understand the unstated. Some call it a "dog whistle."

Had the speaker said "well, they're moving these functions to Colombia, Philippines and India, which are providing worse service because of ," the conversation would have gone rather differently.

> You are either a racist, unintelligent, or else ignorant. You do not write as though you're unintelligent. I do not personally assume that people are racist because I disagree with them (though your writing makes me challenge that). I can therefore only conclude you're ignorant of what real people do at real jobs.

I'm not going to dignify this with a response. Take this garbage to Twitter where it belongs.

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

#402

Post by isityouyesitsme »

otterley wrote: post #401
isityouyesitsme wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't flag it. I'm not improperly judging anything. I have lived this for too long. "No good reason" is a fantasy. There is "no good reason" other than the real world standing in the way, which is an economic motivation you keep neglecting, not a racial one. You are either a racist, unintelligent, or else ignorant. You do not write as though you're unintelligent. I do not personally assume that people are racist b…

You're not wrong that economics motivate the choice of where to hire for a customer support function. Customer service is a cost center, so naturally companies will choose to hire where labor is cheap but the job can still be done . If it's not being done well, that's a problem to point out. But that's not what happened in this conversation. To reiterate, here is how this thread went, in context: >> I think you are u…

Yeah, everything you're writing is just coming off as projection.

Let's part ways, you have no insights to add, only ugly accusations of people you've never met.

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

#403

Post by lakomen »

freedomben wrote: post #89

I don't think this sort of emotional, loose-facted "hot take" style response is real constructive. I'm unhappy about this decision by Red Hat, and am also very concerned about the trajectory RH is on. For the first time in well over a decade I'm re-evaluating which ecosystem to base all my work (and the company(ies) for who I make decisions). I don't believe that Red Hat's leadership cares a whole lot about open sour…

It is exactly the right response.

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

#404

Post by yrro »

yrro wrote: post #221
buzer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> am I limited to the number of open sockets I assume they mean CPU sockets.

In Red Hat Subscription Management I can see that each entitlement for the "Red Hat Developer Subscription for Individuals" product is good for a system with up to 128 sockets. And you get 16 (or possibly 240, or possibly this is a bug) entitlements.

It's now back down to 16, aww!

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

#405

Post by OnlyMortal »

lproven wrote: post #332
OnlyMortal wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So amazingly primitive they even think a digital watch is a pretty neat idea.

Ford? Yes? There's an infinite number of monkey outside, who want to share a single digital watch.

More Arthur.

Many NeXT machines have had their hostnames after Hitchhiker characters. My favourite name been “zaphod”.

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

#406

Post by komatineni »

InTheArena wrote: post #53

Time to rally around the flag here. This is an incredibly hostile move by Redhat - and the attitude that only they provide value in the ecosystem is incredibly toxic and a direct threat to what open source stands for.

Without a doubt. Not sure if this is purely from IBM + Corp or Redhat sales folks finally getting over the whole idea of FOSS

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

#407

Post by komatineni »

donatj wrote: post #24
lagniappe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm asking this non-facetiously: Is there a wikipedia page or a written record of all the people/corps who've been taken to task in court over a GPL violation, or a large company such as IBM? If yes, was the penalty commensurate?

This appears to be a decent though seemingly incomplete list with outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation

Thanks for the pointer actually.

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

#408

Post by 743cnq2fmgauzzw »

bzt wrote: post #344
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.

> The fact that the subscription agreement does not allow this is exactly what we're discussing here. There's nothing to discuss. What Red Hat is trying to do IS ILLEGAL and GPL explicitly grants the right to all their subscribers to gave RH the finger. From GPL Section 8 "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a fu…

It's even better because not only can you ignore RHEL's infringing terms, but RHEL's license to use GPL code has been terminated.

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and *will automatically terminate your rights under this License*. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

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

#409

Post by 743cnq2fmgauzzw »

reaperman wrote: post #391
taylodl wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyleft open source licenses allow freeloading [1], but they also allow Red Hat to gate source code GPL does not allow for gating the source code. Full stop. You are allowed to charge a nominal fee for the distribution of source code. For example, back in the day it may have to be mailed to you via floppy diskette or CD's so you would be charged for the media and for the time for someone to put that together. Waln…

>You are allowed to charge a nominal fee for the distribution of source code. You added the word "nominal" but the GPL offers no guidance for how large the fee can be. RedHat appears to be breaking norms here but probably not breaking the license. GPLv2: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. GPLv3: You may charge a…

[flagged]

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

#410

Post by 743cnq2fmgauzzw »

reaperman wrote: post #391
taylodl wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyleft open source licenses allow freeloading [1], but they also allow Red Hat to gate source code GPL does not allow for gating the source code. Full stop. You are allowed to charge a nominal fee for the distribution of source code. For example, back in the day it may have to be mailed to you via floppy diskette or CD's so you would be charged for the media and for the time for someone to put that together. Waln…

>You are allowed to charge a nominal fee for the distribution of source code. You added the word "nominal" but the GPL offers no guidance for how large the fee can be. RedHat appears to be breaking norms here but probably not breaking the license. GPLv2: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. GPLv3: You may charge a…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN