21–30 of 253 posts
> "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.
We already _do_ a lot of work. This is _more_ work.
I was poking around the Rocky Linux website, and wondering where to download the latest source code for Rocky 9.2? Let's say IBM decides not to burn up the ecosystem, will Oracle / Alma start using the source that Rocky exfiltrates? Related question, as a Red Hat subscriber can I still distribute Red Hat ISO and source code? It seems like I should be able to distribute ISO images and source after obtaining them.. but…
The value proposition for RHEL is ostensibly support (and a "throat to choke", for whatever that's actually worth). Red Hat's gamble is that no "legitimate" Red Hat subscriber would risk their support entitlement (and the ability to contract with Red Hat for support in the future) by exercising their rights under the GPL.
It's a clever hack. It runs counter to ideals of Free software (and I find it personally repugnant) but it's clever.
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…
[1] https://podcast.asknoahshow.com/343 about 20 min in
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?
Further: https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/has-red-hat-just-killed-rock...
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…
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.
I was poking around the Rocky Linux website, and wondering where to download the latest source code for Rocky 9.2? Let's say IBM decides not to burn up the ecosystem, will Oracle / Alma start using the source that Rocky exfiltrates? Related question, as a Red Hat subscriber can I still distribute Red Hat ISO and source code? It seems like I should be able to distribute ISO images and source after obtaining them.. but…
Red Hat can't stop you from exercising your rights under the GPL to redistribute the code. You also can't compel them to do business with you. They've structured their support agreements such that if you do exercise your rights under the GPL they will stop supporting you (and decline to offer you future subscriptions). The value proposition for RHEL is ostensibly support (and a "throat to choke", for whatever that's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's cute how many people think the uproar is about whiny freeloaders or clickbait influencers.
No it's mostly from people with a commercial interest. I can't take Rocky seriously when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle.
> "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.
Yeah, that's not what any of us are saying. We already _do_ a lot of work. This is _more_ work.