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

Keeping Open Source Open

rockylinux.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 253 posts

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#11

Post by Shakahs »

fariszr wrote: post #4

> One option is through the usage of UBI container images which are based on RHEL and available from multiple online sources (including Docker Hub). Using the UBI image, it is easily possible to obtain Red Hat sources reliably and unencumbered. We have validated this through OCI (Open Container Initiative) containers and it works exactly as expected. > Another method that we will leverage is pay-per-use public cloud…

The public cloud route is pretty elegant. Red Hat is restricting source code to subscribers only, so Rocky contributors will just subscribe for an hour at a time when they need to download source code. There’s no way for Red Hat to stop this without terminating all public cloud licensing everywhere.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#12

Post by cosmiccatnap »

It's sad to see a post like this get so much hate in the comments section. We all benefit greatly from an organization maintaining a stable Linux ecosystem and the idea that somehow redhat isn't entitled to give back to Linux as much as they have benefited from OSS goes to show just how much coolaid HN has been drinking as of late.

These corporate concerns are not some law of nature and it's up to us to support people when they are willing to fight for end consumers, something that modern redhat has all together abandoned

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#13

Post by bonzini »

geerlingguy wrote: post #2

It sounds like they have two different mechanisms they can pull from currently, which will get them to parity with RHEL releases. Red Hat would need to shift a few knobs and probably offend quite a few people running UBI images at least (including a zillion folks in the OpenShift community who rely on them) to cut off this current approach to getting the sources. I wonder if Red Hat is willing to play this game of wh…

My guess is that they will be content with:

1) having something to show their customers who has the actual expertise

2) making it clear that the Red Hat of today is significantly more open than the Red Hat of 2014 when neither CentOS Stream nor UBI existed and CentOS releases were months late despite the SRPMs being on ftp.redhat.com

3) making it obvious that they are respecting the GPL, and that no one gives a flying f**k about "free as in freedom" because all the uprising was always about either the free beer or the clicks/likes.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#14

Post by mackca »

geerlingguy wrote: post #2

It sounds like they have two different mechanisms they can pull from currently, which will get them to parity with RHEL releases. Red Hat would need to shift a few knobs and probably offend quite a few people running UBI images at least (including a zillion folks in the OpenShift community who rely on them) to cut off this current approach to getting the sources. I wonder if Red Hat is willing to play this game of wh…

Here's a thought, maybe Red Hat was being honest when they said that they were not under an obligation to make it easy for rebuilders, and that's it? Maybe they weren't out to immediately kill the clones because they know that they can't? We have actually heard very little communication from Red Hat most of it has been speculation from people on what they might or could do, but as you point out there are ways around the changes Red Hat made.

Honestly this from this post Rocky conflicts with the "RHEL is closed source/proprietary/paywalled" narrative that people are trying to push. If RHEL was truly any of those things Rocky wouldn't have been able to continue on, but they were able to quickly find a solution, though to me it seems a bit hacky. If Rocky is pulling packages from the supposedly untested, beta of RHEL CentOS Stream, and UBI and some EC2 instance, why would I use that over something that was build cohesively in one place like Stream?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#15

Post by bonzini »

cosmiccatnap wrote: post #12

It's sad to see a post like this get so much hate in the comments section. We all benefit greatly from an organization maintaining a stable Linux ecosystem and the idea that somehow redhat isn't entitled to give back to Linux as much as they have benefited from OSS goes to show just how much coolaid HN has been drinking as of late. These corporate concerns are not some law of nature and it's up to us to support peopl…

> somehow redhat isn't entitled to give back to Linux

So it's not enough to employ more than 1000 people working on upstream/Fedora/CentOS Stream, have a strict upstream first policy for features that go into RHEL and their other products, donate to a bunch of foundations and sponsor conferences, maintain the main repository of firmware updates for Linux, be consistently in the top three contributors to Linux, open source pretty much all the closed source code that they get from acquisitions, distribute source also when not required by the license, give away two distributions for free, and possibly more things I don't remember?

Good to know, at least they tried.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#16

Post by jrm4 »

bonzini wrote: post #15
cosmiccatnap wrote: post #12

It's sad to see a post like this get so much hate in the comments section. We all benefit greatly from an organization maintaining a stable Linux ecosystem and the idea that somehow redhat isn't entitled to give back to Linux as much as they have benefited from OSS goes to show just how much coolaid HN has been drinking as of late. These corporate concerns are not some law of nature and it's up to us to support peopl…

> somehow redhat isn't entitled to give back to Linux So it's not enough to employ more than 1000 people working on upstream/Fedora/CentOS Stream, have a strict upstream first policy for features that go into RHEL and their other products, donate to a bunch of foundations and sponsor conferences, maintain the main repository of firmware updates for Linux, be consistently in the top three contributors to Linux, open s…

No. No it isn't.

If you know the history, if you know the license, then you know the philosophy that you're taking from. I don't think they're evil, but the people who did the early work getting this started did so with one level of expectation, and this is a different one. You get no love, Red Hat.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#17

Post by femiagbabiaka »

mackca wrote: post #14
geerlingguy wrote: post #2

It sounds like they have two different mechanisms they can pull from currently, which will get them to parity with RHEL releases. Red Hat would need to shift a few knobs and probably offend quite a few people running UBI images at least (including a zillion folks in the OpenShift community who rely on them) to cut off this current approach to getting the sources. I wonder if Red Hat is willing to play this game of wh…

Here's a thought, maybe Red Hat was being honest when they said that they were not under an obligation to make it easy for rebuilders, and that's it? Maybe they weren't out to immediately kill the clones because they know that they can't? We have actually heard very little communication from Red Hat most of it has been speculation from people on what they might or could do, but as you point out there are ways around…

If they don’t care, then why make it more difficult?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#18

Post by rodgerd »

cosmiccatnap wrote: post #12

It's sad to see a post like this get so much hate in the comments section. We all benefit greatly from an organization maintaining a stable Linux ecosystem and the idea that somehow redhat isn't entitled to give back to Linux as much as they have benefited from OSS goes to show just how much coolaid HN has been drinking as of late. These corporate concerns are not some law of nature and it's up to us to support peopl…

Can you explain what you think Rocky are giving back to the community?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#19

Post by djbusby »

m4r71n wrote: post #8

> "Consequently, we now have to gather the source code from multiple sources, including CentOS Stream, pristine upstream packages, and RHEL SRPMs." Oh no! How dare they make us do the work? It feels tiring to hear these arguments that they must be provided with everything bundled neatly with no questions asked and no contributions to the actual upstreams.

They arent asking to be handed everything - they've simply explained how the process has changed now.

Complaining about change; and describing the steps that are being taken is far from saying they "must be provided with everything bundled neatly with no questions asked"

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#20

Post by geerlingguy »

bonzini wrote: post #13
geerlingguy wrote: post #2

It sounds like they have two different mechanisms they can pull from currently, which will get them to parity with RHEL releases. Red Hat would need to shift a few knobs and probably offend quite a few people running UBI images at least (including a zillion folks in the OpenShift community who rely on them) to cut off this current approach to getting the sources. I wonder if Red Hat is willing to play this game of wh…

My guess is that they will be content with: 1) having something to show their customers who has the actual expertise 2) making it clear that the Red Hat of today is significantly more open than the Red Hat of 2014 when neither CentOS Stream nor UBI existed and CentOS releases were months late despite the SRPMs being on ftp.redhat.com 3) making it obvious that they are respecting the GPL, and that no one gives a flyin…

It's cute how many people think the uproar is about whiny freeloaders or clickbait influencers.
Post reply on HN