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

61–70 of 253 posts

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#61

Post by coldtea »

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.

What's the term from name-calling when facing some argument one doesn't like?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#62

Post by coldtea »

totallywrong wrote: post #26
geerlingguy wrote: post #20

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.

>when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle

So just like RedHat and IBM?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#63

Post by musicale »

emmelaich wrote: post #58
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…

I wonder if Red Hat will provides sources for the rpms in the containers (or actually installed) and nothing else.

Breaking rpm in cloud and container instances seems like a losing strategy.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#64

Post by musicale »

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…

> 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.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#65

Post by gbraad »

coldtea wrote: post #62
totallywrong wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle So just like RedHat and IBM?

Just like Canonical asks for Ubuntu, and SUSE for SLE/Leap they make. Rocky/CIQ are not 'making' RHEL, ...

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#66

Post by nativeit »

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…

Bill Cosby was a real funny dude—and also a serial rapist.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#67

Post by pravus »

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…

> So it's not enough ...

Not when you stepped in the open source and GPL arena, no. There are some pretty heavy expectations considering most of us grew up in a world where every distro was freely available everywhere, including the original Red Hat before they went the RHEL route. That's the entire reason CentOS came to be. And here we are again.

I say we... I use Arch Linux and gave up on this over a decade ago.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#68

Post by denimnerd42 »

nequo wrote: post #43
soneil wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And IMO, was it worth it? I suspect they're playing with unintended consequences now. One of the nice "features" of buying CentOS, is that it meant CentOS was never going to compete - there was a clear line between community and professional, and CentOS were never going to sell you professional services. Pushing everyone to non-RH builds has removed that line, and there's a strong chance that non-RH builds selling…

> and there's a strong chance that non-RH builds selling professional services, is going to have a higher opportunity-cost than publishing CentOS did. Could you clarify what you mean by opportunity cost here? Who faces this cost and why?

IBM faces this cost. Before they created this fracture in the EL community there wasn't all this interest and support behind centos alternatives. People just used centos for free or rhel for support. now you could potentially use EL with support from another vendor without IBM seeing a dime.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#69

Post by gbraad »

tgmux wrote: post #36
totallywrong wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one guy saying he doesn't know what's up. I have no doubt he doesn't get paid. What counts though, is this: https://rockylinux.org/support

I'm one of the board members who replied on the forum thread. Rocky has never sold support or any other product. We make an OS for the community, that's it. The link to the support providers page simply is that, a list of other third party providers who offer paid support services.

So why is Rocky Linux as the 'project?' trying to indicate they still go to space: https://mastodon.social/@rockylinux@fosstodon.org/1106244765..., referring to the 3 person seat, 2 year premium support 'they' sold to NASA?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417968 https://sam.gov/opp/2e0365ce1e3c4c179b50fb15573d68e4/view

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#70

Post by newaccount74 »

> Moreover, Red Hat’s Terms of Service (TOS) and End User License Agreements (EULA) impose conditions that attempt to hinder legitimate customers from exercising their rights as guaranteed by the GPL.

Does someone have more details on this?

Post reply on HN