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

111–120 of 253 posts

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#111

Post by bonzini »

geerlingguy wrote: post #20
bonzini wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You recognize a clickbait influencer when you see it.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#112

Post by bonzini »

coldtea wrote: post #91
gbraad wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You paint a very weird picture of the engineers they pay to work on Gnome, the kernel, or the hundreds of other libraries used. What more should they do? Also note, Red Hat pays engineers for the extended support, the compliance https://access.redhat.com/articles/2918071 , etc that customers expect from RH. Engineers contribute both upstream (first) and backport those changes to older releases.

> You paint a very weird picture of the engineers they pay to work on Gnome, the kernel, or the hundreds of other libraries used. They're paid to work on FOSS projects. Gnome isn't a RedHat project. Nor is the kernel. And they're IBM projects even less. And most of those projects started without RedHat and RedHat stepped on them to become what it is first. Plus, there are thousands of essential projects they don't ha…

> Gnome isn't a RedHat project. Nor is the kernel.

Because Red Hat wants to work with the community, it doesn't just start projects and slap a CLA on top of it.

https://redhatofficial.github.io/ is only a small part of what Red Hat has contributed to.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#113

Post by pjmlp »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #92

The solution here is forking and accepting that IBM just doesn't want to share. The whole value of the Red Hat eco system is lots of people using the down stream variants. Actual direct licensees of Red Hat are not where most of the action is. The value creation is actually distributed across the ecosystem. People encounter issues, report them, and fixes are distributed. If you break that cycle and get IBM out of the…

Lets see how it goes, Red-Hat is a major contributor to anything GNOME, X Windows/Wayland, GCC, Linux kernel.

clang dropped to third place after Apple and Google decided to refocus on other languages, it is yet to recover from it.

FOSS is great as mantra, it turns out many people can only spend so many hours, if putting food on the table matters as existencial question.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#114

Post by bonzini »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #42
bonzini wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's the term for those paid actors placed in audiences to cheer for patently terrible things? Found one.

"Free software contributor of 25 years"?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#115

Post by pjmlp »

musicale wrote: post #64
bonzini wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> making it obvious ...that no one gives a flying f*k about "free as in freedom" because all the uprising was always about either the free beer Indeed - Red Hat is making it obvious that IBM (like most large companies) views open source as free beer - or rather free labor. It's great when they get other people's labor for free, as long as they don't have to give away any of their own.

Lots of free beer in Linux exist because Red-Hat and IBM made it happen in first place.

As did some of the other beloved giants over here.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#117

Post by pipo234 »

bonzini wrote: post #99
jillesvangurp wrote: post #92

The solution here is forking and accepting that IBM just doesn't want to share. The whole value of the Red Hat eco system is lots of people using the down stream variants. Actual direct licensees of Red Hat are not where most of the action is. The value creation is actually distributed across the ecosystem. People encounter issues, report them, and fixes are distributed. If you break that cycle and get IBM out of the…

> IBM will grumble a bit and then ultimately join the foundation because their alternative will be just writing off the investment they made in Red Hat and watch from the sidelines how most of the ecosystem stops depending on IBM's Red Hat. You could have said that if they switched to using CentOS Stream, and that would even have been my favorite outcome as a Red Hat employee. However, Rocky Linux is neither a siblin…

That makes a lot of sense.

Ideally, Rocky's money making side could come to some sort of agreement to share revenue with RHEL's money making side, so that in turn RHEL's software making side doesn't mind sharing code with Rocky's (lack of) software making side.

I think the abundant corporate sponsoring of Rocky Linux proves that AWS, Google, Facebook etc. are happy to pay for access to RedHat's work. They just do not agree to the way that the licensing scales (both costs and hassle).

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#118

Post by pipo234 »

bubblethink wrote: post #84
dlor wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's definitely not their only recourse here. Lawyers are not going to look at this coordinated attempt to subvert a EULA and say "oh well, nothing we can do here".

>Lawyers are not going to look at this coordinated attempt to subvert a EULA and say "oh well, nothing we can do here". Once you get lawyers involved, you lose a lot of goodwill. At that point, who can tell RH apart from Oracle?

Indeed, who can?

RH is still leading and sponsoring a lot of Linux development — that's the goodwill part. But maaaann, for quite a while RHEL has not been a very welcoming and inviting distro (unless you're the one checking the boxes on the corporate procurement form).

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#119

Post by Stranger43 »

ivolimmen wrote: post #51

May I remind everyone that these weird steps that the open source community is doing are not the result of Redhat per se but are a result of IBM that wants his investment back.

They are the same entity now that's kind of what happens when a company gets merged into another company.

It's also what a lot of people expected would happen when IBM bought RedHat and the whole centos-stream debarcle happened and i suspect a lot of what were seeing is that IBM/RedHat(can we start calling them big purple now) is not seeing the growth to RHEL sales they were expecting from those changes/decisions, or might even seeing a decline in greenfield deployments of RHEL.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#120

Post by veeti »

kazinator wrote: post #89

On another topic, we can finally see the motivation behind those SRPMs. The whole purpose of a SRPM is to take some upstream source code and repackage it into a different archive blob which has to be downloaded in its entirety and unpacked in order to determine whether any of the code is patched, or pure upstream. If, instead of a SRPM, you have some small, declarative text file which gives upstream URLs, SHA256 dige…

Or the SRPM was designed 30 years ago when people didn't have always online high speed connectivity.
Post reply on HN