In tech years, I'm pretty old. I started using Linux when it was easiest to get as a boot image and root image on the Banjo FTP server, maybe ftp.funet.fi. Later, SLS, then Slackware, then FreeBSD, OpenBSD (co-wrote the IP Filter howto)... then #RedHat bought my company. I've subsequently spent more than half my life working at RH, and most of that time running Fedora, since Fedora was a thing. This is not impressive, I've just been here, and that means I have some perspective on #opensource.
Open offer: If you are confused by the recent #RedHat announcement on source RPMS and all the drama of "Red Hat isn't open anymore!1!!" and other weird accusations — DM me and I will happily explain the details in a call. I also agree to you recording that call and use the result in any way you want.
A rising tide raises all boats - if you're going to punish #redhat, make sure you punish all #Linux companies if you can't easily build their entire code tree yourself
Our subscriptions mostly pay for the salesmen and the ads. They sell ads first, IT second. So I'm not gonna cry for RedHat. The image of the poor developers working in a cave, struggling to make money is only in our mind. They had a perfectly functional model but decided to sabotage some of it to try to squeeze even more money....
Can we all agree to stop referring to the RHEL source export decision as CentOS drama? It doesn't affect CentOS at all. CentOS knew the rebuild model was fundamentally flawed and moved on to something better.
My response to @fedora’s proposal to implement opt-out data collection in Fedora, which was marked as hidden and “flagged as inappropriate: the community feels it is offensive, abusive, to be hateful conduct or a violation of our community guidelines.”
The reality is they're still better than a lot of companies claiming to do #OpenSource but it feels like a betrayal because they were the hero of open source for so long
One of the hard things about the #RedHat thing is that #CentOS's existence as a community rebuild was so often touted by people at Red Hat as a testiment to Red Hat's commitment to #opensource. It wasn't whether or not they could shut it down, but that they knew about it and intentionally didn't. Of course, there were those at Red Hat who disagreed with that back then, but it was very much a pitch point for what Red Hat was about in the #Linux space.
Open Source community after Red Hat decides to go closed source 😂 #linux#redhat#rhel#opensource By limiting the RHEL public sources to CentOS Stream, it will now be more difficult for community/off-shoot enterprise Linux distributions like Alma Linux, Rocky Linux, Oracle Linux, etc, to provide 1:1 binary compatible builds against given RHEL releases.
Keeping Open Source Open https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ It seems like the Rocky Linux team is willing to find creative solutions to problems, even if it requires a bit of hacking. I am curious if Red Hat is willing to engage in this game of whack-a-mole. Was it truly beneficial RedHat? Was it worth it? #rhel#redhat#opensource#linux
"It feels wrong to speak positively about an Oracle product, but Oracle Linux is actually a good option worthy of our consideration." https://unix.foo/posts/enterprise-linux/
Before #redhat's most recent RHEL source code changes, none of us could've ever dreamt of a world where someone saying that wouldn't be laughed off the Internet immediately.
Most of the people bitching in this thread could use #stream, those bitching about lack of support need to engage with their account managers.
Those suggesting that #redhat is suddenly anti opensource are on some good shit. 2 Upstream fully open distros and then one for commercial purposes is anti-opensource?
> Note that if there is an End User License Agreement (EULA) or other terms required to download the software, it is not open source and those terms would have to be reviewed further.
And a Red Hat engineer, upon seeing it, claimed "Red hat enterprise Linux is not an opensource project" [sic] — if so, my perception of reality is blown.
I've been seeing lots of "the sky is falling" takes around Red Hat pulling out of LibreOffice RPM maintenance in Fedora. Here's a reality check: the vast majority of packages in Fedora are not maintained in an official capacity (i.e. part of their job) by Hatters. That's because only a small subset (~10%) of Fedora packages make it into RHEL. Currently RHEL 9 has 6,501 RPMs (from 2,393 SRPMs), while Fedora 38 has 60,807 RPMs (from 23,281 SRPMs).
Just to recap the latest in the #Redhat RHEL vs downstreams not offering them any value drama:
Redhat publically states that downstream rebuilders offer them no value, and the RHEL community should all be working in the Centos-stream sandbox, because that's where the community is, because it has community right there in the name, and that's where the code fixes can land, and community is only about lines of code in the repo.
@almalinux goes "alright, no value in us being a 1:1 rebuild of RHEL, then we're cutting our own path while being based on Centos-stream, staying ABI compatible with RHEL, but we'll fix our own bugs when we find them"
Alma Linux then finds a CVE in the iperf3 server impacting everyone in the Enterprise Linux 9 ecosystem, so they release the fix for AlmaLinux, and then immediately open pull requests for Fedora and Centos-stream to land the fix upstream. Which would seem to be exactly what Redhat was asking for this whole time.
Redhat's response to the centos-stream pull request? "There is no current customer demand for this fix in RHEL, so we're not interested in this fix"
The astute will notice that the pull request is feeding into centos-stream, and not RHEL. But they're making merge decisions here based on immediate customer demand in RHEL.
So maybe this whole "Centos-stream is the community distro" line was bullshit and it really is just the beta testing ground for RHEL, just like all of us kind of thought it was while getting shouted down by the centos-stream advocates this whole time.
As much flack as I've given #RedHat over #RHEL source shenanigans, they've kept #Ansible AWX #opensource and available to the public, very much to their credit. Tower was proprietary when they bought it and they opened it and kept it open.
And yes, this post is really about #Hashicorp. Don't do false equivalent arguments. Hashicorp definitely did the worse thing.
So I am helping a bit with preparing a #RedHat#Girlsday at our office in #Munich. And we discussed if we should have some cool thingies to show. So I proposed to bring my 2 #OLPC. The original (and still working!) $100 laptop. Still the cutest little machine that could ...
Reminder that RedHat makes A LOT of money already. The results of the 2019 fiscal year show that RedHat spends twice as much money on ads and sales people than on developers. (www.businesswire.com)
Our subscriptions mostly pay for the salesmen and the ads. They sell ads first, IT second. So I'm not gonna cry for RedHat. The image of the poor developers working in a cave, struggling to make money is only in our mind. They had a perfectly functional model but decided to sabotage some of it to try to squeeze even more money....