Red Hat, you're harming the entire Linux ecosystem. ( tilvids.com )

Grab a brand new laptop or desktop running Linux: 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: www.youtube.com/@thelinuxexp/
 Patreon: www.patreon.com/thelinuxexper
 Liberapay: liberapay.com/TheLinuxExperim


Or, you can donate whatever you want: paypal.me/thelinuxexp

👕 GET TLE MERCH Support the channel AND get cool new gear: the-linux-experiment.creator-


đŸŽ™ïž LINUX AND OPEN SOURCE NEWS PODCAST: Listen to the latest Linux and open source news, with more in depth coverage, and ad-free! podcast.thelinuxexp.com

🏆 FOLLOW ME ELSEWHERE: Website: thelinuxexp.comMastodon: @thelinuxEXP: pixelfed.social/TLENickPeerTube: tilvids.com/c/thelinuxexperim
 Discord: 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.

this ,
@this@sh.itjust.works avatar

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?

namehere ,

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

turdas ,

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?

ace ,
@ace@lemmy.ananace.dev avatar

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.

poVoq ,
@poVoq@slrpnk.net avatar

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.

haroldstork ,

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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • ‱
  • linux@lemmy.ml
  • random
  • All magazines
    •