@itsfoss the “This will hurt Red Hat in the long run” story isn’t new or novel. They said it about Red Hat Linux -> RHEL, they said it about trademark enforcement, and half a dozen other things.
Maybe this is different, but two things are true: It hasn’t hurt Red Hat yet, and the company is still more open and does more upstream than it’s required by a long shot.
@itsfoss Also, the idea that Redhat making what is essentially a parasitic relationship harder is a "suicide attempt" shows that whoever wrote this has no idea how much work and effort goes into making an Enterprise distribution.
Alma and Rocky operate parasitically purely off of the CentOS git. They now need debrand, and work a little harder. And code is still available to customers.
@itsfoss Redhat making it harder for rebuilders isn't a suicide attempt. Distros like Alma and Rocky, while useful offload a ton of resources and are able to be profitable because Redhat engineers are doing all of the big development and feature implementation. They're rebuilding, and essentially profiting off Redhats hard work. And they don't contribute upstream hardly.
I don't think this is a good way for Redhat to respond to that, and I prefer Debian, but they have a point in what they said
"Question: Why is RHEL so popular in enterprise environments?
Answer: CentOS"
Hard disagree. In a small number of cases maybe. As someone who spent a decade consulting for some very large RH customers, the answer is: up to 15Y support for a major version, 24/7 1h response, dedicated TAM, certification to work the entire hardware stack (servers, SAN, network etc) and certification to run SAP, or the bank's core-banking product or whatever from both RH and that vendor.
"2. Like any other Linux distribution, the source code used to build RHEL (or a clone of RHEL) was available publicly."
Since Stream is what RH themselves use to build RHEL this hasn't changed. Also, "like most other Linux distributions" would be more accurate. SuSE Linux Enterprise and Ubuntu Pro have source not publicly published no?
@itsfoss I wish you hadn't used "behind a paywall" in the first sentence. It doesn't help either that in the article you switch to "soft paywall" either.
The source code is all available in the public CentOS Stream GitLab, the source code in the form of neatly wrapped SRPM gift packs, is behind a "login garden fence" with a free dev subscription.
Anyone headline skimming sees the first few lines and is led to believe that it's a much more impactful change than it is IMO.
@itsfoss I remember when IBM closed access to the firmware downloads for Power systems and you needed an active support contract to download it. They wanted to make sure companies were buying support. At least at the companies I was working for at this time management began to push slowly towards using Intel servers.
Add comment