121–130 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged "freeloaders"? I don't think there are any corporate entities reselling a rebuilt Ubuntu
Are there any reselling a rebuilt RHEL?
OEL is just rebuilt RHEL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they respond? This just confirms their position as the leader in the Linux space, doesn't it?
Leader? Citation needed. 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. [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/936113/
Kernel contributions are only one metric / piece of a distro, and these days a lot of the code churn is hardware if I’m not mistaken. It makes sense that Red Hat has slipped because the big changes are in new support for hardware.
I wish they went for a 501(c)3 non-profit, rather than a 501(c)6 trade organization. The incentives between these two structures make a world of difference.
can you elaborate?
501(c)(3): Organizations under this classification must primarily serve a public interest and not a private interest. Any private benefit must be insubstantial.
501(c)(6): These organizations are designed to serve the private interests of their members, as long as those interests align with the broader industry or line of business.
Everything else follows from this distinction IMHO. You see it play out in the Linux or Rust foundation, in contrast to the Python or Zig software foundation. It's easier to get attention and members with a trade organization, but over time, over the long term, there's a stark difference that I believe is not disputed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd also be nice if employees of Red Hat wouldn't make personal attacks on folks affiliated with Rocky Linux (and to a greater extent CIQ), justified or not, but I can understand nhanlon's defensiveness, just as I understand the defensiveness from many on Red Hat's payroll surrounding everything the past month+.
Where is the personal attack?
I am SUSE-curious after all the drama and lost trust with RedHat and IBM but any partnership with Oracle makes me uncomfortable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the personal attack?
Elsewhere, mostly centered around Twitter, Reddit, and LinkedIn. Thankfully the comms have been more level-headed around these parts.
This is one factor in my determination to never allow them into my regional data center. There are several other factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as people may hate oracle, they employ significant contributors to the Linux kernel. https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/ Many in very important subsystems. The XFS maintainer (who just recently stepped down from this role) and contributor Darrick Wong works for Oracle. Meanwhile, btrfs is the creation of Chris Mason, who worked there until 2012. Modern filesystems on linux owe a decent debt to Oracle. Good luck…
> They cloned RHEL because an unhealthy, dependent ecosystem was built around the one, singular linux distribution, not because they are unwilling to fund work. They cloned RHEL to spite Red Hat for the JBoss acquisition in the mid-2000s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They cloned RHEL because an unhealthy, dependent ecosystem was built around the one, singular linux distribution, not because they are unwilling to fund work. They cloned RHEL to spite Red Hat for the JBoss acquisition in the mid-2000s.
...because Oracle themselves had bought BEA Systems, owner of Weblogic. JBoss was a competitor to Weblogic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEA_Systems
Oracle and Red Hat both entered the bidding for JBoss and Red Hat ended up winning. Larry Ellison took this very poorly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...because Oracle themselves had bought BEA Systems, owner of Weblogic. JBoss was a competitor to Weblogic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEA_Systems
Your timeline is wrong. JBoss was acquired by Red Hat in 2006, then Oracle Linux was announced a few months later also in 2006, then Oracle bought BEA Systems in 2007. Oracle and Red Hat both entered the bidding for JBoss and Red Hat ended up winning. Larry Ellison took this very poorly.
I really remembered the BEA acquisition as the prior event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I knew you'd show up and say this. CIQ's CEO claims to have founded Rocky and is the current president of RESF, is Rocky's most prominent sponsor, and Rocky's recent moves have been in the same direction that CIQ requires in order to survive. Regardless of direct control or not, Rocky's financial incentives align with CIQ's. As you so point out your bias, it would be really nice if you didn't speak on behalf of your…
It'd also be nice if employees of Red Hat wouldn't make personal attacks on folks affiliated with Rocky Linux (and to a greater extent CIQ), justified or not, but I can understand nhanlon's defensiveness, just as I understand the defensiveness from many on Red Hat's payroll surrounding everything the past month+.