A good thing in general, maybe this will help improve compatibility with old stuff and its old bugs, cause it’ll be simpler to emulate those bugs with cleaner code.

BTW, has anyone managed to run Rogue Squadron 3D under Wine? I’m just interested, I’m having that menu input bug not allowing to do anything.

FVWM.

Agree about SUSE, it’s really amazing.

Yes, Debian and also Gentoo. Slackware may not be dead, but out of race in the sense of being a stabilizer as one of the “main” (culturally, not in numbers) distributions, and Arch has lost most of sanity it had (not much to begin with).

Same as any ports system. Though yes, for Linux the alternatives may seem less convenient like Portage or less extensive like Pkgsrc.

So sad for Sun. Just touching their products as they were before getting eaten by Oracle is an amazing experience.

Also very nice artistic language in visual design, I know this is not the most important thing.

I mean, RH became dominant by not initially being a bag of dicks.

So if SUSE becomes the main enterprise vendor (to more precisely address RH’s role, one can say “root enterprise vendor”), then its enshittification is just a matter of time.

Other than that, I like Tumbleweed, it just works, and, unlike Fedora, without bullshit.

Still the whole corporate atmosphere makes me wary. SUSE is good, we just shouldn’t put all our eggs into one basket (and should fix that with RH).

I just listen to the “Enclave Sublevel” track (more rarely others) from KotOR II OST, or sometimes “Bastila Shan” track (more rarely others) from KotOR OST, or “Polyhedrons” track (same) from Disco Elysium OST, or theme 2 (same) from Ascendancy OST,

For a company building bloody airplanes - yes, I totally agree.

I’d expect it to be about the same, with 737 MAX, yes, on one side and too many examples on the other.

I want to be clear on my bias here: I firmly believe that open source would not be a ‘thing’ if it weren’t for Red Hat. Linus Torvalds himself once said (albeit 10 years ago) that the shares he received from Red Hat before their IPO was ‘his only big Linux payout’. I don’t think anyone would disagree with the statement that Red Hat has had a major significant positive impact on Open Source across the world.

So we have to blame these guys for FreeBSD not becoming the main free Unix-like operating system?

On a serious note, I firmly believe that I would not be a thing if it weren’t for my parents, which doesn’t mean they are right all the time.

About work to debrand - they could just get back to the ancient Red Hat Linux model. Support is commercial, some software is commercial, everything else isn’t. I’m pretty sure that would be a better strategy.

On one side, you have Red Hat, a long time champion of open source software, that has poured billions of dollars into open source development, and which has 1000s of employees who not only on ‘company’ time but in their own time manage, develop, contribute, and create open source code. They have funded countless successful and unsuccessful projects that we all use.

Let’s not get on the path which will lead us to defending Microsoft.

Against Red Hat are two largely distinct groups. The first is the Rebuilders themselves, who Red Hat has claimed ‘don’t offer anything of value back to the community’. This is not meant to be a statement on the usefulness of the rebuilds (Rocky, Alma, Oracle, etc.) but rather a very directed statement on whether or not the rebuilders are providing bug report, feedback, and contributions to the packages that Red Hat has included in RHEL.

I think RH itself needs a free option of their enterprise system. Those businesses which use EL (say, like a few of machines with RHEL, and most with CentOS or replacements) likely won’t buy more RHEL.

The Rebuild users are in a very unfortunate position: they’re about to lose access to a free product that they’ve come to depend on. They are, as expected, unhappy about Red Hat’s decision to stop providing access to RHEL sources. My next statement is callous, and I expect it to be read as such: You get what you paid for. That is not meant to indicate anyone is cheap, it’s just that you shouldn’t have expectations when you are using something for free.

It could work as my previous example - some RHEL for things which need RH support. Some CentOS/etc for things which don’t.

Unification is good, so for some new deployment not only the latter group would be, say, Debian, but also the former. Which is a loss for RH in fact.

“Would” happen? That’s literally what initially happened. They just hoped for something impossible.

From what I can tell, the rebuilders are not adding any kind of value to the situation.

They are adding popularity. Enterprise is slow to change in some ways, but I can totally see the trend of moving to Debian. RH seems to have forgotten their own history and how they’ve started with one Red Hat Linux, with paid support for those who wanted it, and that’s what gave them the popularity to be profitable.

They don’t seem to want to artificially increase the difficulty of rebuilding RHEL sources, just to stop actively spending money making it easier when that work doesn’t return any money for the effort. Which is… Totally fair.

They are, in fact, going to reduce their revenue. Which is the main criterion for a business, no?

I mean, just like humans wither and die with time, so do companies.

Nobody and nothing living forever is one of the reasons centralization is bad. But humans sadly like to flock.

RH is approaching the end of its life cycle. First they were hackers. Then they became a useful and aspiring business. Then RPM-based distributions were what made Linux not marginal anymore (though probably this also has something to do with Mandrake’s success). Then they became something in the center of things, connected to everything happening with Linux and other Unix-like systems (at least on desktop). Then they realized that and started milking that slowly. Then they became arrogant.

The GPL gives you that right, but RH still has the right to cancel your subscription (under this agreement) and not give you anything further under GPL conditions.

So technically (legally) it’s fine and they are in their right, but RH has been doing lots of stuff recently (and not so recently) which I feel is combative and divisive, at the same time presenting their opposition as combative and divisive (the way they’ve been promoting Gnome 3 and Wayland and PA and SystemD and so on, trying to present everybody who doesn’t like these things as a flat-eather or a conservative, and discarding any critique in a tone one shouldn’t allow), using classic propaganda means at that. So they are not acting in good faith, and any reliance on them is bad.

No, it’s a different OS not intended as an alternative to Windows in any other sense that it’s a desktop OS too.

But it won’t be hard if you start with something common, like openSUSE or Debian.

You mean that RH hates ergonomics? Agreed here.

About the function of systemd (or docker, or pulseaudio, or gnome 3, or wayland) - well, I don’t need it, but I understand the usual arguments of its proponents. It does solve problems other init systems don’t. Only it’s such a PITA to use that I’m a Void Linux user.

Especially sad considering that this was entirely different in the Gnome 2 times.

The whole idea of arbitrarily chosen protected classes means that it’s really really a gray area. It wouldn’t be, if the difference could be formulated logically.

The Civil Rights Act

Has nothing to do with what I’m talking about, just like any other piece of paper voted for. I’m talking about law being logically consistent without resorting to protected classes, special categories of population etc.

The main change recently is that certain businesses that produce original expression, such as web designers, can no longer be covered by the Civil Rights Act because the court thought this would conflict with the First Amendment.

And this is a good thing. I mean, there would be many other similar cases before that change. It’s just that they could be ignored before.

Now, my idea of private discrimination is not “you walk into a restaurant, sit down, then a garcon says they don’t serve your kind here”. If a business presents itself like open to public in general, it should be, and otherwise it would be creating dishonest expenses for people thinking they could rely on it while they couldn’t, and this would mean compensations of various damages, both direct and moral. But there should be an option for a business to signal clearly that they deal with only specific categories of population (with those categories unambiguously defined).

Funnily enough, this (because if we leave a loophole of “deciding for each individual customer at the moment of making a deal”, everybody is going to use it) breaks night clubs with their face control without breaking racist shops. But seems right for me.

That’s to be free of discrimination by the state, which usually will treat your obligations independently of your rights.

While private discrimination is always something in the grey area. By private discrimination I mean both a banner saying “<any grouping at all> are not welcome here” and having face control (something quite normal for night clubs, and you’ll also pick your tenants if you rent out).

RH is the maintainer\developer of great many things. Of course it’d be nice for them to have good competition (like what Canonical was), so that they wouldn’t use that power for evil.

Still them becoming weaker is not a case for optimism.

I’d really like something like Gentoo with official binary packages (and relevant tree), so that building from source would be an option and installing a binary package the usual way. Well, also simpler installation maybe.

I mean, Calculate Linux does that, but I think it’s a Russian small-business oriented distribution, so not exactly my use case.

The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That’s the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.