SUSE is forking RHEL • Hacker News Board

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#241

Post by themerone » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

mcpackieh wrote: post #234

themerone wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they ever issue a release saying, that they were baseless claims by an ex employee? It's a bad look to say absolutely nothing.

Ignoring it is the correct move. They aren't serious allegations, otherwise they would have been made in a serious manner. The guy claims that he was wrongfully terminated for antisemitism in Germany of all places. Do you really think the German government wouldn't take that seriously and investigate? But all he decided to do was blow hot air on his blog, because his allegations are nothing more than a cynical lie me…

Not filing a complaint doesn't mean anything.

A lot of people want to wash their hands of their old employers and move on, even when they have actionable claims.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#242

Post by fuero » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:53 PM UTC

Name one distro apart from the EL clones that offer MAC policies for the software in the core repos. SELinux in Debian is a joke, so are the AppArmor policies.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#243

Post by mcpackieh » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:56 PM UTC

themerone wrote: post #241

mcpackieh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring it is the correct move. They aren't serious allegations, otherwise they would have been made in a serious manner. The guy claims that he was wrongfully terminated for antisemitism in Germany of all places. Do you really think the German government wouldn't take that seriously and investigate? But all he decided to do was blow hot air on his blog, because his allegations are nothing more than a cynical lie me…

Not filing a complaint doesn't mean anything. A lot of people want to wash their hands of their old employers and move on, even when they have actionable claims.

He didn't wash his hands and move on, he took to his blog and tried to spread the story around the net. If he were serious he would go to the authorities.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#244

Post by interactinghash » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

pepa65 wrote: post #186

I always assumed that SUSE was rolling their own rpms, but were they? Maybe they were somehow dependent on RH to the extent that this move now makes sense also for the rest of their business?

They do maintain their own RPMs - but they also offer support for CentOS / RHEL for customers who use SUSE and RHEL. Their hand me be somewhat forced, as they have to continue to fulfill these contracts.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#245

Post by interactinghash » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:11 PM UTC

rootbear wrote: post #202

"SUSE forking RHEL" sure sounds like a double entendre in this context.

why? SLES does not use any RHEL sources, they are all build in-house

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#246

Post by pinko » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:20 PM UTC

evasb wrote: post #152

Isn't SUSE devaluing their own distro in entering this RHEL-clone debacle?

I'm sure they calculated that it's better they cannibalize their own product vs. letting others do it...

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#247

Post by bityard » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

silisili wrote: post #4

I'm continually baffled that so many companies follow RHEL compatibility to this day. I've been using Linux for nearly 30 years. Admining as a profession for at least a quarter of that. 20 years ago, it made a ton of sense. Today, less so. The 'stable version but we backport patches' mantra doesn't make any sense today. I can't even describe how many things that have broken that you can't even find an answer for beca…

When enterprise-sized IT departments wanted to switch away from cumbersome, expensive commercial Unix systems, RHEL was there to step in. As a result, it became the default enterprise Linux distribution and vendor.

The reason why it is still special is because even in 2023, if any commercial enterprise applications and hardware support Linux at all, it is generally only RHEL.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#248

Post by ZeroSolstice » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

pelasaco wrote: post #125

silisili wrote: post #4

I'm continually baffled that so many companies follow RHEL compatibility to this day. I've been using Linux for nearly 30 years. Admining as a profession for at least a quarter of that. 20 years ago, it made a ton of sense. Today, less so. The 'stable version but we backport patches' mantra doesn't make any sense today. I can't even describe how many things that have broken that you can't even find an answer for beca…

> I can't figure out why RHEL compat is so desirable. If you cannot figure out, then you are not working with Linux, despite 30y+ of experience. Big Companies need certifications, maintenance, support and compatibility is necessary. Specially companies running linux in mainframe, or for instance, delivering embedded devices like storages or medical devices

Why would you be dependent upon CentOS(RHEL compat) if you are in those industries? If you need certification and LTS then pay for it by purchasing RHEL licenses.

It seems very silly for people to be getting upset now that a free OS hasn't taken their business considerations to heart. Unless of course you were going for the model of charging everyone enterprise rates for your devices/software/work/etc and pocketing what you would have to normally pay in enterprise licensing because its a "community" OS, which everyone is free to do, but these are the risks that come with that.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#249

Post by diffeomorphism » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

Decabytes wrote: post #228

I can't understand how IBM & Red Hat can see this article and the statements from Oracle and not think. "Are we the bad guys?"

If oracle is on the opposite side, you are probably fine.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#250

Post by em-bee » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:34 PM UTC

gigatexal wrote: post #154

em-bee wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't think the clones themselves are the problem, but the commercial support available for clones is taking away business from red hat, and that is where the conflict lies. in a way it is actually a similar problem with amazon and the like offering commercial support for databases. that is an inherent problem in the FOSS model. on one hand it is great that anyone can offer support for any FOSS software, but when b…

Same i've no clue how to solve FOSS funding > "i don't think the clones themselves are the problem, but the commercial support available for clones is taking away business from red hat, and that is where the conflict lies." exactly what i mean when I say 0-value-added-clones because they then turn around and sell support on the clones which seems seemingly unethical to me somehow -- though i am still working through…

0-value-added-clones

most of the clones themselves are not selling support, at least not at the scale that would be a problem for redhat. clones do add value because they allow small companies to use a version of RHEL without having to pay for license/support they can't afford. when these companies grow they then can become red hat customers.

at least that was my understanding of the goals behind centos and also why redhat took it on and made it part of their products.

the problem is not all third-party support, but only companies that compete for large corporate contracts like oracle.

when a company hires me to install centos or some other clone for them, and then calls me when there are issues with their servers, then technically i am selling support on clones. but i very much doubt that in that case i am taking away business from redhat. heck, most likely i would have been the one who recommended centos to them, when i could have recommended debian as well. these companies come to me because they trust me, not because i am selling them a big brand on the cheap.