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

91–100 of 410 posts

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

#91

Post by CaliforniaKarl »

LaSombra wrote: post #80
woodruffw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the author is expecting charitable behavior: it's more that Red Hat was deriving extraordinary amounts of value from his work, and was (partially) compensating for that by making his (and others') support for RHEL easier by providing them will access to RHEL. In other words: Red Hat's behavior here is almost certainly going to make end-level support for their OS worse, not better, all for a tiny slice o…

Red Hat offers free subscriptions to developers. How doesn't it help in this case?

The sign-up path isn’t clear: When I signed up, it took a day for all the parts of Red Hat’s infrastructure to become aware of me. That delay wasn’t made clear at the time.

It expires every 12 months, and you have to take action to renew it, again with a not-very-clear path. It’s not possible to renew early (at least, I didn’t see how).

It adds extra friction: You don’t get a custom ISO or the like. Instead, you have to register your system during installation. It’s an extra step you don’t have to take.

There’s a subscriber agreement you must agree to, which not everyone wants to do.

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

#92

Post by aaomidi »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #79
mattl wrote: post #34

Will Red Hat start discreetly tagging source code releases per subscription to find out who is sharing source code?

I've read a suggestion that that actually would violate the assorted open source licenses in question, which generally require some version of giving the user the same source as was used to build the binaries they got. Of course, they might be able to just do it on the more permissively licensed packages.

So all it would take is a couple of separate releases of the SC, and you can diff to see the changes.

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

#93

Post by CaliforniaKarl »

edgyquant wrote: post #82
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.

Red Hat is a huge contributor to Linux. They also are responsible for making it a trusted OS for people coming off traditional Unix in the 90s. They aren’t doing anything on the backs of others.

Red Hat are relying on innumerable folks who do the work of certifying that their products work on RHEL, potentially creating lock-in for Red Hat.

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

#94

Post by dmix »

freedomben wrote: post #89

I don't think this sort of emotional, loose-facted "hot take" style response is real constructive. I'm unhappy about this decision by Red Hat, and am also very concerned about the trajectory RH is on. For the first time in well over a decade I'm re-evaluating which ecosystem to base all my work (and the company(ies) for who I make decisions). I don't believe that Red Hat's leadership cares a whole lot about open sour…

> But that said, as far as I know, one guy used the term "freeloaders" and the context wasn't clear at all who he was talking about, and certainly not clear whether that is one person's opinion.

Yeah, Red Hat wasn't the one that called them "freeloaders", this was language The Register used in an article:

>> Having given the move time to successfully eliminate most of the clones, Red Hat then killed off its own official free version of its paid-for flagship product. Instead, it switched to offering a free test version, an announcement which it made accompanied with lots of positive-sounding language about community involvement, and so on. In fact, what it was really doing was cutting off those that might be seen, from its perspective, as a bunch of freeloaders. The move was accompanied with free production deployment of RHEL for developers – but only up to 16 machines.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/red_hat_centos_move/

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

#95

Post by LaSombra »

donatj wrote: post #10
poo-yie wrote: post #7

I'm surprised at all of the drama surrounding Red Hat's decisions. Red Hat is a for-profit company and not a charity. They (Red Hat) don't make any claims of offering RHEL for free to the whole world. If you want that, Canonical's Ubuntu may be a better option for you. Am I missing something?

You’re missing the fact that they are pedaling GPL software, and thus they are inclined to be offering it for free to the whole world, definitionally.

Auto makers, TV makers, and others use GPL software left and right and they don't, or rarely, offer a easy way to obtain it. How's it different?

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

#96

Post by pamhalpert »

criddell wrote: post #39
pamhalpert wrote: post #9

Not going to touch the hair on fire tone of this in general... but one thing worth mentioning is I believe the "freeloader" comment meant Rocky, Alma, Oracle and the likes are the freeloaders who are repackaging and RESELLING without contributing anything. If you read between the lines in 2020, this was the next logical step coming. I think they should have done both changes back in 2020 and put a wider emphasis on t…

> RESELLING without contributing anything I think you are underestimating the value of providing support to commercial users.

So, what Red Hat already offers.... Was Alma and co doing upstream development where they can prove it? Was Oracle patching upstream first or only in oracle linux? Was Rocky offering anything unique, value adding, or were they just copy pasting and selling?

It may sound loaded, but I'm genuinely asking, because from what I've seen the answer in regards to value add is pretty ambiguous.

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

#99

Post by bvrmn »

Some reasons why Stream is not replacement for Centos alike (Alma, Rocky, ...).

1. Stream can't be used as base to build el-compatible packages. There is no any guarantees Stream doesn't break ABI compatibility.

2. Stream has no large (several years) support cycle and can't be used as a stable system. Yes, there is a big community who don't need a paid licensed support from a RH and ready to help with bug reports and testing.

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

#100

Post by otterley »

CAP_NET_ADMIN wrote: post #87
criddell wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RESELLING without contributing anything I think you are underestimating the value of providing support to commercial users.

You mean, the valuable support they are increasingly shifting to Colombia, Philippines and India?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN