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

I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 410 posts

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#221

Post by yrro »

buzer wrote: post #37
jmclnx wrote: post #35

>Red Hat seems to be upping the limit to 240 sockets per developer as of this writing -- EDIT: I read twitter, seems it may mean number of machines as opposed to open sockets. But a very confusing post. I stopped with RHEL 2 months ago at work, I use Slackware at home. What does that quote mean, if I get a RHEL developer license, am I limited to the number of open sockets ? That almost goes back to the per user licen…

> am I limited to the number of open sockets I assume they mean CPU sockets.

In Red Hat Subscription Management I can see that each entitlement for the "Red Hat Developer Subscription for Individuals" product is good for a system with up to 128 sockets. And you get 16 (or possibly 240, or possibly this is a bug) entitlements.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#222

Post by ertian »

pamhalpert wrote: post #18
gtirloni wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Red Hat is a for-profit company ... built on top of software and labour contributed by others. What you're missing is how the open source ethos works.

>... built on top of software and labour contributed by others. the irony of Rocky, Oracle, and etc just flat out ripping off Red Hat.... which is the exact move that caused this change lol

If they sold for profit and started putting their changes behind a paywall, that would be terrible. But they're just benefiting from Red Hat the same way that Red Hat benefits from upstream Linux. Red Hat is the one misbehaving here.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#223

Post by stonogo »

pamhalpert wrote: post #18
gtirloni wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Red Hat is a for-profit company ... built on top of software and labour contributed by others. What you're missing is how the open source ethos works.

>... built on top of software and labour contributed by others. the irony of Rocky, Oracle, and etc just flat out ripping off Red Hat.... which is the exact move that caused this change lol

If they don't like it maybe they should change their licensing

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#224

Post by CrLf »

neurostimulant wrote: post #215
CrLf wrote: post #172

Why can't AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux drop their bug-for-bug compatibility commitment, and become stable distributions in their own right, based on CentOS Stream? I think this ecosystem would gain a lot from these distributions having their own identity, instead of being just 1:1 copies of RHEL. Change my mind. ;)

Many enterprise apps are distributed as binary release that compatible with RHEL, and people want to run them without using RHEL, especially in situations when it doesn't make sense to purchase RHEL licenses.

I understand that scenario, having lived in it for many years. However, in practice, that doesn't require bug-for-bug compatibility.

The proof of this is that such software tends to run perfectly fine even across different RHEL major versions with just a few compatibility packages.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#225

Post by greendave »

jzb wrote: post #182
parasense wrote: post #169

To quote Jeff: > Here's how it used to work: > Red Hat would grab a copy of Linux They would add magic sauce that makes it Red Hat Enterprise Linux > They would release a new version. > They would update a source code repository with all the data required to build it from scratch A few remarks. The "add magic sauce" part is gone, all the secret sauce, or black box machinery is out in the open in CentOS stream. Red Ha…

Let me preface this by saying, Jeff owes Red Hat nothing and he's free to stop "supporting" RHEL for any or no reason at all. That said, "grab a copy of Linux" seriously, gloriously, hilariously handwaves away so many things that Red Hat does to create a RHEL release. Red Hat pulls together hundreds or thousands of upstreams to create RHEL, participates in many of them, tests all that together , helps partners certif…

> Red Hat pulls together hundreds or thousands of upstreams to create RHEL, participates in many of them, tests all that together, helps partners certify software against it, etc. etc. etc. > It's true, Red Hat doesn't "own" the Linux kernel, but it's done a ton to help develop it over the years. But RHEL is not merely the kernel nor any single upstream. RHEL is a product that comprises thousands of packages all tested together and then released as a supported product. > What Red Hat is trying to guard is not the source code to any single or even groups of projects. It's trying to preserve and capture the value it created from all those parts. Coincidentally, that value is what businesses, competitors, and the community are clamoring for and not the source code alone.

That's a point that (unfortunately) seems to have been lost along the way. A big part of the reason why people use(d) CentOS was because of the confidence they had that it'd be stable, functional, receive timely security updates, etc. And the main reason that was true is the work RedHat put into RHEL.

That said, it's not entirely a one-way street. The widespread use of CentOS meant much wider support for RHEL by open-source packages (and some closed source ones) than a locked down, limited availability RHEL would have had. I know of places that use RHEL because CentOS is widely available, and of places that would never bother to support RHEL if it weren't for the availability and (near) ubiquity of CentOS.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#226

Post by mattl »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #203
cryptonector wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wishy-washy language there about skirting lines doesn't make that a very good analysis. You can use others' GPL code in your products and charge money for it. You have to "publish" the GPL'ed sources (and any sources of yours that derive from GPL'ed code) on demand -- publish as in: if someone asks, you have to give it to them, but there's no requirement that there be a public download page or anything like that, and…

The GPL does quite intentionally not require you to provide a public download page (or git access, etc), and this was more or less discussed and a conscious decision by those who came up with the GPL, agreed. Albeit in pre-widespread-internet days when a "public download page" wasn't a thing yet (and the equivalents were much more expensive, thus why they might not have wanted to require that burden). But still. I ag…

Don't forget that the FSF was selling binaries as a fundraising opportunity for a while as part of the Deluxe Distribution they'd sell for $5000, and before that Stallman was selling copies of GNU Emacs on tapes for $250.

Selling binaries has always been a business model.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#228

Post by qa_acc »

Nowadays I feel like a fool , why should I do open source contribution? To enrich these big corporation that thank you with that behaviours and pissing a you professional category ?

- They stole your code embedding it in close commercial crap without credits for the authors nor source code publishing;

- They stole your code using it to create AI appliance that are absolutely not intelligent but act like indirection layer to nullify the license and than they say that developer can be substitute but those "AI" appliances;

- As Mr. Geerling point out, now they shamelessly pass on the GPL license without fear of retaliation;

I hope that the community will do its move, first of all updating the GPL to explicitly forbid this loophole, I'm talking about paywall and illegal restriction of the source code distribution. Moreover , I think some kind of open source licence enforcement organisation should exist. Licenses without enforcement are hot air. For plenty of that organisation Open Source programmers are only simpletons , not dedicated peoples building their fortune. IMHO, I would like to see the possibility to bill for commercial use of open source code easily with license that explicitly cover this area and, again, organisation doing enforcement. Time is a priceless resource and IMHO is inconceivable that corporation etc reduce open source programmers to the role of slave workers of third world countries.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#229

Post by ynx »

> Also ignore the fact that Red Hat builds their product on top of Linux, which they didn't build and don't own.

I feel like this ignores the fact that Linux's continued success is, in large part, a direct consequence of its ability to compete for government contracts by way of Red Hat pursuing compliance and funding development to that effect, in addition to a massive amount of Linux development that Red Hat does directly fund.

Like, yeah - they're not the only reason Linux is successful, but RHEL's success definitely played a big part in making it suitable for the datacenter.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#230

Post by jmclnx »

jmclnx wrote: post #47
buzer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> am I limited to the number of open sockets I assume they mean CPU sockets.

I was thinking the same, if so that is a direct line to how AIX is provisioned, limitations on use and pay more to get more. I the author of the post says, time stop RHEL support. I wonder if/when the FSF will weigh in.

>TYPO: I the author of the post says

I meant to say:

Like the author of the post says

Post reply on HN