CWP panel
What Does Red Hat Want From Linux!!
What Does Red Hat Want From Linux!!
#Red #Hat #Linux
“Brodie Robertson”
Recently there was a Red Hat talk at Flock 2023 and it’s quite enlightening in regards to the recent Red Hat Enterprise Linux source code drama
==========Support The Channel==========
► $100 Linode Credit:
► Patreon:
►…
source
To see the full content, share this page by clicking one of the buttons below |
3:06 yes
Thank you for summarizing this.
I know those things that personally I don't want. I don't want to use RHEL or related "community" distributions. Not that "I'll never use them!!!11", but I'll avoid them if possible, and won't recommend them to anyone.
I do not want a drm linux distro. zero interest, whether it is free or pay, I do not want it.
RedHat won't conquer Linux. They did set standards for Enterprise but now Oracle has been declared such by G2. Oracle doesn't want to conquer it and can't. RedHat doesn't have a chance.
Here's the simple fact. RedHat doesn't care. Unless you are a fortune 500 company, who's paying millions of seat or server license, RedHat simply doesn't care. So yeah we can complain, maybe even take a server or two over to different distro's but for the most part their core business won't be effected, and it won't effect their bottom line hardly at all.
I think allot of people lauded RedHat as some great open source champion, but with this I think we can all see they are shifting more and more towards Microsoft or apple every day. That's were the money is at after all.
no, fuck you for even implying that.
Red Hat and IBM want to dominate linux like Microsoft dominated the PC Market
If they want to close that portion of sharing . So what! Only free loaders have an issue . Let’s be honest and clear
When I watched this video, it was labeled "Does Red Hat & IBM influence Fedora Linux"!! I watched everything and was very disappointed because they didn't talk about Fedora really…. Interesting they changed the Title!
You can trust fedora😂. How about the latest bug, did you encounter it? I hope not.
"Operating Systems are not commodities but distros are…"
100% – most Linux distros are just a bunch of packages on the same Linux kernel. With new packaging formats such as containers, nix and flatpak. The user-space components are interchangeable. I can run a RHEL only package on a Debian server using the RHEL Base Container Image/Universal Base Image so what I run on the metal is of no consequence.
Red Hat seems to have missed the mark on what REHL, itself is. Maybe this is due to IBM, but REHL is supposed to be a stable Linux Distribution in which you are paying not for the Distribution but rather to be supported if anything goes wrong, part of the Linux license the GPL is that the source code must be provided. It does also mean that yes, another group or individual can take that code and redistribute it without the support contract. This has never been a bad thing and I'm not entirely sure why not they are trying to make it one, many Distros based off Red Hat have existed over the years, and this wasnt a problem until recently. Most companies and corporations deploying RHEL are doing so with the intent to be able to get the support needed when something goes wrong, in most cases so they dont have to employ people just to fix issues and instead can pay a fee to ensure they have someone on call to solve their issues, in this case, the company that develops it themselves so they know they are going to get good full fledged support.
IBM seriously miscalculated. People using Linux are resilinet and smart. They survived stab in the back from rich greedy elites many times, and they respect freedom more than anything. Mark my words, RH is now percieved as Microsoft-like archnemesis, RHEL is in decline and if they continue walking this path RHEL will end up like IBM ThinkPad.
RH can polish this turd as much as they like, its still a turd. You don't get to decide what is or is not a clone when its still a collection of free software. You don't get to decide what is or is not fair competition, you don't get to own the market. Can't say I'm surprised since their IBM buyout, and this is just the beginning.
No. They will not conquer Linux.
I am finding Debian 12 quite amazing!
I'm curios what is the actual use case of a 1:1 bug compatible RHEL distro is? The "but also money" comment rings true but doesn't it also apply to every downstream clone? Just looking at some of the backers on Alma and Rocky they are definitely making a pretty penny for repackaging the RHEL solution. These communities are not a problem for Red Hat, it's other enterprises that could/can take those community projects and offer support. Look as HashiCorp and the terraform license change. They lost out on a lot of money and are "struggling" due to other large enterprises repackaging their project. The viewpoint I am looking at is seeing RHEL as a solution, not the Enterprise Linux. I think the struggle here is that the community sees RHEL as the Enterprise Linux base when Red Hat does not. By shifting their development pipeline around it allows them to protect their solution from other enterprises while still being able to support community. RHEL is Red Hat's opinionated solution with CentOS Stream being the Enterprise Linux base and community driven project.
Red Hat has betrayed the open source community. Red Hat is done. Let's fork everything, and get going. Red Hat will just become like IBM or Sun. It is no longer relevant. So, why should anybody care about some Red Hat manager?
Notice that he's reading a script and he didn't have a safe-harbor disclaimer at the beginning…
IBM is totlaly driving this., IBM sees ANYTHING they see as a copy, or free, or not giving them direct revenue as a direct threat that must be destroyed. Redhat, despite their statements otherwise, is totally being driven by the suits at IBM.
15:12 Their argument was: some organizations are getting a small number of RHEL systems and a LOT of CentOS systems and then ask for support often, despite only having a small number of RHEL systems, when the real problem was actually triggered on a CentOS system.
19:01 it's pretty simple: IBM bought it, they are like Oracle who bought Sun: they want to make their money back as fast as possible. So they can start to make a profit on their investment. Simple as that…
@Brodie You say you do not know what promise is being made by RHEL clones. Well, what promises is RHEL making to its customers? Can the clones make those same promises to their customers? How?
What kinds of promises? Access to the code ( or the compiled OS ) is only a tiny part of this really. What Red Hat is promising is that they will be there and that they have the expertise and resources to make good on that commitment. They are promising that the software will fill the same hole and solve the same problems for the customer tomorrow that it fills today. That is, they are promising that the software will evolve to ensure that remains the case ( which is a bit of an extension of the expertise and financial strength stuff again ). What an enterprise wants is not necessarily what the Open Source community delivers. An enterprise may want to write some custom software and host it on RHEL. They do not want to have to re-write that software because RHEL changed so they ask Red Hat to make sure that RHEL does not change for a really long time. But they also need it stay secure. Oh, and work with new hardware. Oh, and adhere to this crazy regulation that matters to us. Taking the Open Source stuff off the shelf and meeting all these needs takes work and the customer does not want to do that work so Red Hat promises to do it for them.
When Red Hat provides RHEL they represent that they are a partner capable of creating RHEL to begin with. The are promising that they will ensure that RHEL continues to be what it needs to be for its customers. When the clones do that, they cannot make this promise really. To the extent they can, it is only via their access to RHEL ( so actually it is really Red Hat making the promise ). The "community" loved it when Oracle sent an open letter to Red Hat suggesting that Red Hat should "pull source" from Oracle instead of Oracle pulling it from Red Hat. This was brilliant marketing but honestly it should make engineers and "the community" throw-up in their mouth. We should at least roll our eyes because it is an obvious and absurd lie. Without RHEL, there is no Oracle Enterprise Linux because Oracle is never going to do that work. Oracle is not going to do everything that Red Hat is doing and then give that away. Never happening. Rocky would not exist either. If Red Hat decided to stop making RHEL, Rocky would cease to exist. The reverse is not true. RHEL does not depend on Rocky or Oracle at all. When Red Hat makes a promise with RHEL, they intend to keep it themselves. When you become a customer that relies on RHEL, Red Hat is making a bunch of promises to you. When you become a customer of Rocky, you may think they are making the same set of promises but really they are not. As you say, they ONLY promise they are making really is that they can provide a bug-for-bug replica of RHEL for less money. Perhaps I explained that really badly.
Can't really see the issue. It's still possible to use CentOS Stream to create your own distro. But you can also just use something else like OpenSuse if you absolutly want an RPM based system or Ubuntu, both of which are enterprise systems. A better option is to just launch a Debian instance and build that to fit your need, or something else entirely. It's Linux, there are plenty of options out there. If you don't need the RHEL support I can't see why RHEL would be your only option.
this dude cut the answer. what a dick move
I think everyone who understands the opensource ecosystem moderately will not have any issue donating to a couple of useful projects that person uses regularly or have helped him in any significant way, but i think there is a lot of confusion out there between opensource free to use, freemium and any other similar models.
seems like you didn't listen or understand him at all… You seem to think if something works for years, that it will always remain the same… it does NOT. Markets change, customers change, everything changes.
RHEL did not go closed source. It reveals the poor state of journalism and discussion within the community when anyone thinks the source is not available with the binaries.
The Q&A question about IBM and closed source reminds me a lot of a guy that asked a Microsoft employee shilling WSL on an Ubuntu conference if they're also going to support Wine
This is another example on why you should not use "Corporate Linux".
Can you not recod a screen with a video player UI in it? Is it hard to download the original video and add yourself in it?
I haven't watched the video yet, but the teenager in me sees this presentation name and has to say…
Red Hat can get flocked.
Monetising developers: RedHat awfully act like they want to monetize developers – what is the limited free RHEL developer access, if not a monetisation strategy?
You don't give limited free access to something if you don't intend to get money for raising the limits (see Microsoft's free Windows 10 without activation program)
Great video and analysis !!
I add my own 2c here for anyone interested and passionate about Linux.
All I hear (from the embedded video) is a lot of BS trying to justify Red Hat actions.
The reality is that CentOS is in fact owned by Red Hat and it was Red Hat that made decisions about CentOS future direction [1] – the "independent" governing board had no control or say in this matter.
Then, the thing about recommending RHEL… I have had some major issues with RHEL support over the years. Red Hat will only support you when you run workloads officially supported by Red Hat. Doing your own custom thing on RHEL? Sorry – you are on your own. You could just as well have run Debian in this case. That means RHEL is essentially for running other Red Hat enterprise products with a couple of additional third party (sometimes commercial) products that will also be supported by Red Hat. This is especially true, for example. when deciding which Java Application Server to run on RHEL. For example, RHEL support OpenJDK [2] but if you want to run Oracle JDK, you will need support from Oracle and Red Hat will point you to them if you happen to call Red Hat – even if it's a RHEL issue (and I have personal experience of this !!). Red Hat does have some Oracle JDK to OpenJDK migration guides [3], but for anyone who has ever attempted to migrate a real enterprise application by switching JDK versions will know the pain… It's not as straight forward as you read from the guide.
Similar story for other products. Want to run Rancher in stead of the overwhelmingly overpriced OpenShift? You will need to get your support [4] from Rancher. But you will quickly see that Rancher will not be supported on RHEL in any of the major hyper cloud providers (as an example). Therefore, if you need RHEL to run Kubernetes, your only option really is OpenShift. And OpenShift licensing and support is even crazier than this RHEL issue!
Then the section about free alternatives (like Rocky)… I can't understand how Red Hat has come to the conclusions they have come to. These alternatives are not in any way "selling" the same promises as Red Hat. This never happened. And they are also not driving prices down. They are only giving users an alternative to RHEL, which is binary compatible with RHEL, but without all the licensing cost and support…. On OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. It was literally built to be shared !!!
So, what is my point? Well, I would argue it is now better to run a true open Linux distro (like Debian/Rocky/etc. – even Ubuntu can be an option) and hire competent Linux Sys Admins and Engineers to maintain your servers, and then rely on product specific support for your actual workloads (as and when required). I belief that RHEL will start to fade away and serve only a very particular niche market. It is really sad for me, especially as I am a Red Hat Linux user since the late 90's (my first boxed Red Hat distro that I bought with my own money was Red Hat 5.0).
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/killing_centos/
[2] https://access.redhat.com/articles/1299013?extIdCarryOver=true&sc_cid=701f2000001OH7TAAW
[3] https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/11/05/migrating-from-oracle-jdk-to-openjdk-on-red-hat-enterprise-linux-what-you-need-to-know
[4] https://www.suse.com/suse-rancher/support-matrix/all-supported-versions/rancher-v2-6-13/
Fedora users are the white space of Redhat.
"Redhat and RHEL chose deliberately not to be in the Desktop operating space. Redhat offers a workstation which is a very specific kind of hardware doing very specific kind of work, not general purpose Desktops. A very confusingly named Fedora-Workstation is a fantastic desktop" Brian Exelbierd.
I don't want to be a white space for a corporate company, however benign they may be.
I donate to all open source projects that I use extensively. I'm in the thousands of euros for arch and gentoo, and I'm approaching a thousand for gnome as well. I purposely don't donate to Mozilla tho. They're just gonna screw me and any other donors over to please their highest donor, Google.
Haha, let’s compare RHEL with SuSE. Didn’t SuSE just delist from the public market?