Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

suse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 179 posts

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#141

Post by inemesitaffia »

anyoneamous wrote: post #99
Espionage724 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're enterprise with more than 16 machines, you can and should probably be paying for RHEL. What I'm not understanding is why people need to use RHEL and would resort to free random forks of it, instead of just using CentOS Stream or Fedora that are basically the same thing, actually from RH, and 100% free. RHEL is not that special.

> can and should probably be paying for RHEL. I'm on the fence about that. I wish people were more willing to financially support open-source development, but I've worked with dozens of customers using RHEL over the last 10 years and never seen a single one of them open a support request - on that basis I can see why people feel that the price is too high. When the options are "get gouged" or "be labelled a freeloade…

Nothing in life is ever inevitable. Progress is never certain.

No support requests usually means everything is working. No news means good news

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#142

Post by inemesitaffia »

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #79
BossingAround wrote: post #31

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/

Apple vs Android. Profits vs numbers

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#143

Post by inemesitaffia »

rurban wrote: post #131
rodgerd wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle have a sales pitch - I've been on the end of Oracle's - that is "we'll sell it for less, we don't care, name a price we just want to hurt Red Hat." OEL is just rebuilt RHEL.

With dTrace and kernel live patching added

Are these features available out of the box or exclusive to Oracle?

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#144

Post by anyoneamous »

kiratp wrote: post #114
anyoneamous wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can and should probably be paying for RHEL. I'm on the fence about that. I wish people were more willing to financially support open-source development, but I've worked with dozens of customers using RHEL over the last 10 years and never seen a single one of them open a support request - on that basis I can see why people feel that the price is too high. When the options are "get gouged" or "be labelled a freeloade…

“No support requests” was non-trivially due to RH’s efforts. Did those people thing that stable OSes just build themselves?

Sure, and that's enough motivation for people to be convinced to pay something - I just think the current price is too high.

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#145

Post by BossingAround »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #37
BossingAround wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the differentiator from the Fedora/Centos/RHEL line?

For me: yast (easy to use GUI/TUI for many administration tasks — useful for less experienced admins), snapper (filesystem snapshot management tool which automatically creates them before and after package management operations and allows you to boot into them or roll back if anything goes wrong. Quite similar to FreeBSD boot environments.) zypper is probably the best 'classic' package manager there is (although dnf…

As far as open build service, Fedora has https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#146

Post by anyoneamous »

bonzini wrote: post #139
anyoneamous wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can and should probably be paying for RHEL. I'm on the fence about that. I wish people were more willing to financially support open-source development, but I've worked with dozens of customers using RHEL over the last 10 years and never seen a single one of them open a support request - on that basis I can see why people feel that the price is too high. When the options are "get gouged" or "be labelled a freeloade…

You don't pay for the support requests, you pay for the work of letting you update to the next minor release at your own pace, having those updates be rock solid, and having security fixes even on older releases. In other words you pay for not having to open support requests.

When a free alternative (CentOS, Rocky) exists, you can get those benefits without the cost. The only real differentiator RH has is support.

Being an open source company means that RH has a non-standard business model and should expect non-standard profits. Their business model is inevitably doomed, but rather than innovating they are going with the "lock-in and gouge" model, exactly like Oracle.

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#147

Post by yankcrime »

Kaytaro wrote: post #125
mulmen wrote: post #12

I am SUSE-curious after all the drama and lost trust with RedHat and IBM but any partnership with Oracle makes me uncomfortable.

I'd like to point out that SUSE has never made their source code as available as Red Hat, even after the changes that caused all the drama. The only way to get SLES source code is to sign up for a 90-day evaluation or request it by mail, whereas signing up for a free Red Hat account gives you full access indefinitely. Yet they accuse Red Hat of hurting the open source community by...operating the same way they've alw…

This isn't true, it's publicly available at https://sources.suse.com i.e https://sources.suse.com/SUSE:SLE-15-SP5:GA/

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#148

Post by midoridensha »

davidw wrote: post #32
BossingAround wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For personal and small business needs, you can stick to whatever you'd like, even Arch Linux if that's your poison. That's not the aim of the announcement though.

It's my point though: rather than navigate between what RH is doing and what Oracle is doing, I'll just stick with a solid open source distribution. Lindy effect and all...

Except that Ubuntu isn't "solid" any more, not since they moved to those damn snaps. I'm looking at moving to openSUSE Tumbleweed now because I've had it with Ubuntu.

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#149

Post by BossingAround »

doubled112 wrote: post #65
Espionage724 wrote: post #63

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.

To be honest, if you need 20 licenses because of a home lab, I'm sure if you wrote to Red Hat, they'd probably provide some extra free (or nearly-free, like 50$ a year or something) licenses since your use case is home-related, not business-related.

That said, I can understand how one wouldn't want to do that. For a home lab, I'd say any distro is totally fine.

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#150

Post by bonzini »

anyoneamous wrote: post #146
bonzini wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't pay for the support requests, you pay for the work of letting you update to the next minor release at your own pace, having those updates be rock solid, and having security fixes even on older releases. In other words you pay for not having to open support requests.

When a free alternative (CentOS, Rocky) exists, you can get those benefits without the cost. The only real differentiator RH has is support. Being an open source company means that RH has a non-standard business model and should expect non-standard profits. Their business model is inevitably doomed, but rather than innovating they are going with the "lock-in and gouge" model, exactly like Oracle.

No, CentOS/Alma/Rocky only supports one minor release at a time (that's up to four major releases for a 10 year lifetime). You can stick to a major release but you have to update every 6 months or you'll skip the security updates too.

Red Hat supports 15-ish release streams at this time between RHEL7, RHEL8 and RHEL9. A lot of customers need that because validating a base system update takes months and they cannot afford not having security updates in the meanwhile.

Post reply on HN