71–80 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. You can't get RHEL for free.
Yes you can. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-enterpri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure? Things I read online say it's free, including https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download As I understand, the only costs with RHEL include using it across a large number of machines in enterprise, and customer support. Someone using it on a few machines in a home lab should be fine I imagine?
You can sign up for the developer license and install it on up to 16 machines, after that you need to pay
Does that include virtual machines?
Part of the justification at the time for getting rid of CentOS proper in favor of CentOS "Stream" was that poor Red Hat was doing all the work and spending all the cash in support of CentOS. Red Hat even went as far to say that the CentOS leadership (board?) was in full support. Red Hat never allowed CentOS to have any kind of election. It was never a community driven project after Red Hat bought it. So, very intere…
CIQ is rocky.
Based on https://openela.org/about/ this appears to be a source-only distribution. They do not speak of binary builds (just “buildable”), that's apparently up to the downstream participants.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing given that the previous approach was hampered so much by confusion about where the value is. If this is a commitment to a set of source then the players can compete on ease of use, support or other stuff.
Let's Encrypt has their own infrastructure, governance, etc., but I don't use Let's Encrypt products to interact with Let's Encrypt. Instead, I interact with Let's Encrypt via products like Certbot from the EFF.
If OpenELA's going to provide source, and I access that source through builds provided by CIQ or SUSE or someone else, then I'll be thinking of it in the same way as I think about Let's Encrypt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, it's good. IBM didn't want to continue supporting community things and so here we are, the RedHat business model was a bit tricky and increasingly so because of cloud computing. The great value of RedHat was supported software. You could buy one of those $10,000 per seat software packages for some engineering discipline that was guaranteed to work by RedHat and the vendor and if it wasn't they were quite motivate…
It's been made abundantly clear by many people in many places that this isn't an IBM thing.
https://openela.org
> It will provide an open process to access source code that organizations can use to build distributions compatible with RHEL So they're not trying to create something like RHEL but in a way that is committed to being more 'open' somehow. They're still shooting for the bug-for-bug stuff, and still an effort that's parasitic on RHEL in terms of its substantive development. This whole situation sucks.
Simply put, I'm not using anything with 0racle's name on it. Free software from 0racle? There are gonna be strings attached... to lawyers.
In this case, it might be Oracle's lawyers preventing them from being aggressive, because they wouldn't fare well trying to challenge Red Hat. If they screw up their treading-lightly strategy, or if they get into legal trouble, there could no longer be a suitable operating system to run Oracle Database on.
I suppose this is both good and bad. I wonder if Red Hat/IBM anticipated this, and how they will respond to it.
Why would they respond? This just confirms their position as the leader in the Linux space, doesn't it?
For example, LWN's most-recent report[0] on who contributed Linux kernel patches puts either three or four different companies above Red Hat, depending on if you're looking at changesets or lines changed.
Regardless, if leadership is theirs to lose, then they're doing a good job of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are this controversial :p 16 machines is more devices than I have in my house, and enterprise seems like they can just pay for RHEL. I'm also betting there's not some thorough verification process that would prevent you from running RHEL free on more than 16 machines (seems almost too easy, but just make multiple free accounts per-16 machines? RH I'm sure would be h…
16 devices doesn’t cover everything I have at home, and managing the license(s) isn’t something I’m looking to do.