- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
Grab a brand new laptop or desktop running Linux: https://www.tuxedocomputers.com/en#
👏 SUPPORT THE CHANNEL: Get access to a weekly podcast, vote on the next topics I cover, and get your name in the credits:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thelinuxexp/… Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thelinuxexper… Liberapay: https://liberapay.com/TheLinuxExperim…
Or, you can donate whatever you want: https://paypal.me/thelinuxexp
👕 GET TLE MERCH Support the channel AND get cool new gear: https://the-linux-experiment.creator-…
🎙️ LINUX AND OPEN SOURCE NEWS PODCAST: Listen to the latest Linux and open source news, with more in depth coverage, and ad-free! https://podcast.thelinuxexp.com
🏆 FOLLOW ME ELSEWHERE: Website: https://thelinuxexp.com Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/web/@thelinuxEXP Pixelfed: https://pixelfed.social/TLENick PeerTube: https://tilvids.com/c/thelinuxexperim… Discord: https://discord.gg/XMuQrcYd
Red Hat, their goal is to make money. Nothing wrong about that. I run a company, my goal is to make money. How you make money is what matters to people: is it ethical, or not. Are you selling your soul, lying, selling your community out, or not.
And now, it’s pretty clear that Red Hat IS doing that. They’re enforcing the signature of a license agreement when you create the account that lets you access RHEL, and that agreement is definitely against the values of free software, as it prevents you from redistributing or building your own product based on it
By the way, the legality of this is not something I can discuss, I’m not a lawyer, but there’s clearly a potential contradiction between the license of the code, and what the license of the developer portal lets you do, so I guess someone will look into that
Red Hat lied, and they disrespected the open source community by saying “we contribute a lot, our 1:1 rebuilds don’t, so we’re going to prevent them from easy access to our work”. That’s completely against the spirit of open source and free software, there’s no 2 ways about it
You can’t build your own distro on the backs of upstream’s work, and then refuse to do the same with downstream. Even if you don’t see any value in it, someone does, it’s not up to you to decide that, or you have missed the point of open source entirely
That’s what companies like Microsoft do, or what Apple does: they prevent competitors from even existing, or from being as good.
The truth is, I think Red Hat just has lost the plot. Like Canonical did when they basically abandoned the desktop and all the projects they were working on.
They’re acting like a rational capitalist company, which is NOT what the open source community wants. We hold companies that work in our sphere to a higher standard, and these companies are now failing to meet them
And the real problem isn’t really how Alma or Rocky will survive, they’ll have more work to do, but they’ll manage with the CentOS Stream code. The real issue is that acting like that will in the end, harm Red Hat’s business.
Why? The advantage of Linux is that it’s open source. In enterprise, you want to combine that freedom to customize and tweak, and have many resources accessible to do what you want, but you also want support from a company that knows what they’re doing, and can help in case of a problem.
And Red Hat flat out lying about how they’ll handle things in the future makes them utterly untrustworthy for businesses: are you going to base your business decision on what a company said today, when they already screwed you over twice? No.
And you’re also probably not going to stay in the ecosystem around these distros, because with these kinds of moves, you don’t know if Alma or Rocky will still exist as-is in 5 years.
So, you move to community-run distros, and you start getting used to Debian, or Nix, or whatever else for your own stuff, you want to use that at work as well, and if you’re in a position to push that, you’ll do so.
Except in the long run this also hurts Linux. Because if Red Hat starts making less money, they’ll hire less people, and contribute less to the linux kernel, GNOME, systemd, and other various systems
And this makes the experience worse for everyone, not just Red hat and red hat clones users. Everyone.
So, Red Hat: stop acting like a capitalistic company. You’re not that, you work in a very specific industry, with very specific expectations, and a very specific feedback loop where the community, contributors, users, hobbyists, enterprise and companies all depend on each other. If you break the link somewhere, you’re breaking it for everyone, not just you.
Start acting responsibly. Make your code public again. We expect better from you.
You must log in or register to comment.
Glad that people are finally realizing this considering I’ve been saying it and getting called crazy for the last 13 years.
I’ve only dived into the Linux world 2 years ago. Simply the fact that some of their guides, at least from my region, require a subscription was already pretty bad.
Yeah I’d like to apologize. I would’ve worded it nicer but I absolutely would have been one of those people calling you crazy.
You were right.
I understand the argument, but consider that Red Hat is a huge contributor to more than just RHEL. The biggest contributors to the projects you know and love like Libreoffice, gnome, and Wayland are from people being payed by companies like red hat. I can understand why people disagree with their choice, but when this company profits, they don’t just make RHEL better and support everything dependent on it, they make Linux software better.
They are also a huge cause of extra work for the rest of the Linux ecosystem with their ancient software versions in RHEL. And the worst of it, everything you learn by doing work on those ancient versions is useless knowledge.
You say:
I understand the argument
But then say:
but consider that Red Hat is a huge contributor to more than just RHEL. The biggest contributors to the projects you know and love like Libreoffice, gnome, and Wayland are from people being payed by companies like red hat. I can understand why people disagree with their choice, but when this company profits, they don’t just make RHEL better and support everything dependent on it, they make Linux software better.
which would indicate that you don’t understand the argument
I think it’s more constructive and conducive of insightful discussion if you elaborate why you think this person doesn’t understand the argument, rather than just stating as much as if your statement is true without justification.
Normally I do but considering literally everything they brought up as a reason to support RH’s decision was brought up in the video, it’s apparent that they didn’t watch it and so didn’t even know the argument they claimed to understand
Normally I do but considering literally everything they brought up as a reason to support RH’s decision was brought up in the video, it’s apparent that they didn’t watch it and so didn’t even know the argument they claimed to understand
I feel like Red Hat/IBM, despite still being a big positive financial contributor, is just getting out of touch with the FOSS community
deleted by creator
Pretty sure that’s the point. This is textbook anticompetitive tactics.
So, you move to community-run distros, and you start getting used to Debian, or Nix, or whatever else for your own stuff, you want to use that at work as well, and if you’re in a position to push that, you’ll do so.
Except in the long run this also hurts Linux. Because if Red Hat starts making less money, they’ll hire less people, and contribute less to the linux kernel, GNOME, systemd, and other various systems
There are companies that provide commercial support for debian (and probably nix), if iirc.
I don’t know any company that provides as extensive support as RHEL besides Suse.
I’ve been around the block a little bit. I remember when Microsoft and Oracle were doing things that were problematic for open source software.
Red Hat it’s just following in their footsteps.
Open source and Linux has survived worse than this. And it will survive this too. Does this suck? Yeah for sure. But also it’s predictable.
Anytime there’s a profit motive you see people take advantage of open source software. This will happen again.
Every time it happens, I think the community gains more than it loses. I think it’s a healthy sign that so many people are pissed at what Red Hat has done. If they keep going down this path, their competitors are going to start licking their lips. And I’m sure their paying customers are not happy about losing all the free testing.
OK so I’m user Linux and currently using nobara(GE’s version of fedora). Should I be considering a distro hop in the near future?
Nope. None of this affects Fedora. Fedora is upstream from RHEL, meaning code from Fedora is contributed towards Redhat Enterprise Linux, and not the other way around
Innocent.
Too innocent.
It’s Red Hat who’s financing all major advancements.
Many fedoras leadership council are positions at redhat, and they own the trademark. Meaning the company could choose to have a lot of control over the project.
I understand why people are upset, because Red Hat has a communication problem. The way this change was presented was very much “we’re making this change immediately without any warning & nominal explanation.”
If they presented it as “in 60~90 days, we’re going to make these changes to address such-n-such problems, so we can continue to be sustainable & support the Linux ecosystem,” I’m not sure that the outrage would’ve been as loud or widespread.
I don’t think a lot of the people yelling at Red Hat realize that Linux wouldn’t be where it is today without Red Had.
You can’t build your own distro on the backs of upstream’s work, and then refuse to do the same with downstream. Even if you don’t see any value in it, someone does, it’s not up to you to decide that, or you have missed the point of open source entirely
That’s what companies like Microsoft do, or what Apple does: they prevent competitors from even existing, or from being as good.
This is not a matter of “seeing” value in what Alma and Rocky do, because their value is plainly apparent to anyone, undoubtedly including Red Hat: they’re basically 1:1 RHEL clones, except you don’t have to pay Red Hat to use them. It should also be plainly apparent to anyone why Red Hat would consider this a problem for their business; their main product is the effort that goes into producing and maintaining RHEL, so it is only logical that they would want to maintain as much exclusivity as possible on that product.
Alma and Rocky are competitors to RHEL in much the same way piracy scene groups are competitors to game publishers. It is obviously not a fair competition.
And the real problem isn’t really how Alma or Rocky will survive, they’ll have more work to do, but they’ll manage with the CentOS Stream code. The real issue is that acting like that will in the end, harm Red Hat’s business.
[snip]
And Red Hat flat out lying about how they’ll handle things in the future makes them utterly untrustworthy for businesses: are you going to base your business decision on what a company said today, when they already screwed you over twice? No.
No it doesn’t. Red Hat hasn’t screwed over their customers, they’ve screwed over a bunch of people who aren’t their customers. Why would any paying RHEL customer feel screwed over by this?
I work as a Linux sysadmin for a university, we’re paying for a full RedHat site license with all the goodies, and we certainly feel royally screwed over by this.
Not every single piece of software we run is a RedHat developed/sanctioned thing, and the removal of a guaranteed bug-compatible development platform for the people building those pieces of software - without jumping through hoops or limiting development efficiency - mean that we can no longer guarantee that core pieces of our infrastructure software will remain available for our RHEL installs. Not to mention course IT, where things are even worse in that regard. Lots of such software is already developed/tested/packaged on Alma/Rocky, and if they start diverging from being RHEL bug-compatible - which is very likely with this change - then we’re going to either have to switch away from RHEL - and the paid support, or lose support from the pieces of software.We’re probably going to have to move a bunch more of our ~1.4k systems off of RHEL and onto things like SUSE, Debian, etc in the near future, just so that we’re ready for when shit really hit the fan.
Isn’t there a free developer license for exactly that?
Also: it is an exceptionally bad idea to target exactly one Linux distribution and version. Any software should be sufficiently well tested on a wider range of distributions.
Yes there is, but it’s a pain to setup licenced test environment, and with only 16 free licence you don’t go far.
Not to mention that 16 licenses means that CI/CD usage is basically entirely out of the question.
You’ve obviously never run large research focused systems, such as HPC. There are lots of custom niche software that only target and certified for say CentOS 7 that were planning on pivoting to Alma 9.
The free licenses are simply not enough and the paid for costs are far too high for many public orgs. Cent OS was a way for many people to run and contribute to the RHEL ecosystem without it being cutting edge breaking.
The worrying side is that the interim progress we’re seeing is that people are preferring to bring their own CentOS 7 containers with their tooling instead of migrating them to Alma/Rocky and allowing the systems to run them native.
Ultimately this potential GPL breach may be the undoing of RH.
I am aware, but to me this sounds like a house of cards built on the goodwill of Red Hat. I don’t think we can really blame Red Hat here, when the real problem lies elsewhere. If this results in important research software being able to run on a wider range of systems and academia manages to get their own purpose build Linux distribution running (and thus actively contribute to the ecosystem) instead of freeloading off Red Hat, I consider this a good thing and wouldn’t shed a tear for RHEL or any of the rebuilds of it.
There used to be a specialist HPC Linux called Scientific which was based off RHEL. The issue is that certification of results takes years, the 10 year stability and support was the primary driver, most Distros including Debian are much too volitile.
Although RH are perfectly within their rights to require the account and a fee for the source, disallowing redistribution is a possible GPL breach and is really bad intent on a good faith of the license.
The main issue is that IBM paid far too much for RH and continue to push to get the expected returns out of RH. I’m positive that if the license for RH were significantly cheaper they’d sell much more especially if they tier the pricing to reflect the overall support you’d receive directly. Similar to the gitlab model. I do however feel that RH are not trying to disrupt Rocky/Alma but rather Oracle as they do directly profit as an org. It’s just that is mere mortals are in the crossfire.
I definitely agree with your second point, but unfortunately there are big software companies which don’t.
The main software package which we have to use for our electronics courses only supports RHEL as one example - and currently only RHEL 7 at that.Maybe you as a customer of that software should complain about this with them instead of blaming Red Hat for something that is not really their fault?
Oh I am more than capable of complaining about both. Like RedHat again fucking over the community and making our life even more troublesome, or the electronics software company using the RedHat ESR duration as their release timeline due to support requirements for their certifications.
I think it’s a bit short sighted to say that Rocky and Alma doesn’t contribute back to RHEL and linux in general. From what I’ve seen about the ecosystem around REHL, it seems that they need each other.
Exactly, otherwise CentOS wouldn’t have been taken in by RH in the first place.
Alma and Rocky are competitors to RHEL in much the same way piracy scene groups are competitors to game publishers. It is obviously not a fair competition.
If we were to draw parallel with game piracy, the pirates will not necessarily convert to paid customers if you implement a perfect DRM that totally prevent piracy. Instead, you might even lose customers in the long term as you piss your own customers by deploying such overly strict DRM. Some of those customers might swore to avoid buying your future games.
It’ll remain to be seen whether this move will negatively affect Red Hat in the future, but I think it’s a very real possibility.
Under the current EULAs as a customer I would have concerns that any attempt of mine to modify software from redhat or continue to use my servers without redhat support would be breach of contract. That is a huge step backwards from companies that embrace opensource.
