How SUSE Is Replacing Red Hat as the Linux and Open Source Enterprise Standard-Bearer
How SUSE Is Replacing Red Hat as the Linux and Open Source Enterprise Standard-Bearer
It’s become clear to many that Red Hat’s recent missteps with CentOS and the availability of RHEL source code indicate that it’s fallen from its respected place as “the open organization.” SUSE seems to be poised to benefit from Red Hat’s errors. We connect the dots.
You're viewing a single thread.
To be blunt...
Redhat contributes a huge amount to the community.
The only ones who think they're misstepping or whatever are just making noise and likely aren't even using RHEL.
I don't think people realise exactly how far their contributions go for usability, and getting rid of Redhat of actually a really bad thing for Linux.
I'd even argue, the only people complaining about this likely don't contribute anything to Linux anyway...
The only thing they did is stop oracle pulling their repo, rebranding and selling support slightly cheaper.
I disagree with you. You seem keen to insult people who might hold an alternative opinion, so no doubt you'll attack me as well.
Redhat did far more than just stymie Oracle. That you're saying that suggests you're either deliberately ignoring the facts (Ending CentOS 8 7 years early with no prior announcement, being massively disrespectful to the volunteer CentOS maintainers and support staff), deliberately paywalling source deliberately to target all rebuilders, not just Oracle, generally being amateurish and entitled dicks to the community through their official communications and so on) - or you simply don't know.
About the only thing you say that is correct, is that Redhat do contribute a lot to FOSS, even now. That deserves respect, but it gets harder to do that at a personal level each time they do something simultaneously dumb and selfishly corporate. A lot of people have given Redhat a lot of space and stayed quiet out of respect of their history. Maybe they are right to, but the direction they're heading doesn't look healthy to me.
Half of what you're writing isn't really true.
You're likely assuming a lot of that.
Everyone knows that Oracle was the reason. Sorry, but they basically bragged that they stole the latest rhel source code and added an unbreakable kernel. And they purposely targeted Redhats customers with support by stealing their work.
In other words, their only other choice was to basically close shop... Oracle has been screwing them for years,
Also, sorry, but is it disrespectful when a company drops a project? We could make that same comment about every project. Also, CentOS is open source, as you said, so anyone can download it . They didn't.
You're also likely assuming they're not pouring a huge amount of resources into it too
The perfect current example of rhel improving Linux is pipewire. They are literally unfucking Linux one component at a time in large chunks. It's insane that people here are treating them so badly.
In fact, the community has no problems mistreating Linux developers over tiny things, which is why developers like myself which have been badly attacked in the past have stopped contributing
Half of what you’re writing isn’t really true.
'tis, you know.
Also, sorry, but is it disrespectful when a company drops a project? We could make that same comment about every project. Also, CentOS is open source, as you said, so anyone can download it . They didn’t.
Dropped a project? It wasn't actually their project. I think you're missing some history there. CentOS was a distro started by Greg and Rocky entirely separate from RHEL and ran for many years. Redhat took over CentOS through methods that may be seen as underhand until they had sufficient seats and influence over the Board to have control of it, and then they took/stole the CentOS name. CentOS Linux is an example of a FOSS project that got taken over by a corporate entity, and then killed. (Anyone heard of embrace, extend, extinguish before?) Now CentOS only exists as CentOS Stream, which is repositioned upstream of RHEL and is a staging area/testbed between Fedora and RHEL. Redhat say it's not suitable for production use, so nobody other than testers uses it, afaik.
To my eye, Red Hat’s “direction” has not changed since they formed the Fedora Project to begin with ( the first attempt at keeping RHEL and their “no cost” options distinct ). Attempt number two was the creation of CentOS Stream. Now it is the way they manage RHEL SRPMS. No change in direction. No change in intent. No overall change in their behaviour.
Redhat have done a lot for Linux in the past. And that will likely continue for some time yet. But they have done some seriously questionable things ever since IBM bought them out. I don't like the direction they seem to be heading in as withmany of IBM products.
Is there a “questionable thing” other than your views on CemtOS? I do not watch them super closely but I do not recall anything else.
The lost my trust when they blocked the ability to share the source code
But you probably trust them for every other project like pipewire and such?
In practice, Linux is that it is today thanks to Redhat.
They don't own pipewire, samba or any other community project. They just help fund and develop them
Pipewire is developed by a Redhat employee.. A lot of projects are including policykit.. No they don't own it, and yeah, they're all open source and are freely used by the community
From my experience with development, a lot of these projects primarily succeed because they have a lot of backing. Also, someone needs to start them off, and a lot of these projects are also started by redhat
They do not own it because of their commitment to not just Open Source but ironically the GPL. So the large number of projects they have founded and the larger number of projects are the force behind are not “owned” by them.
They could have “owned” a tonne of the software almost every Linux user uses ( including Guix and Debian ).
This is precisely why it sounds so wrong to my ears when talk about Red Hat as above. Few facts. Lots of name calling.
Linux is that it is today thanks to Redhat.
Mmm, maybe - but only if you allow that the same can be said for the tens of thousands of other companies and individuals who have contributed.
Absolutely it can.
But Redhat is a huge contributor
The biggest threat that Linux faces isn't from Microsoft or other companies. Over the past 30 years, I've noticed it is actually from the community. I've seen so many cases where the community blows things out of proportion and scares off developers. It sucks. Linux and open source would be so much more successful if we didn't constantly make open source toxic for companies
Poor people like Lennart Poettering get shat on constantly too. He could get a much better paying job
Even right now.. VSCode. It's open source and MIT. People are STILL crapping on Microsoft and saying stuff like "oh wait for the enshittification", instead of thanking them, or encouraging them for more
It's bonkers.. There's so much negative reinforcement out there that it's scaring people away
You are right.
It's human nature emboldened by freedom, of course. Codes of Practice help, but can't change the freedom that comes from entitlement and anonymity.
But on balance, there's an awful lot of genuine people doing good, respectfully and politely.
What other company or individual can the same be said of?
He did not say “shared a two-line bug fix one time”. The claim is that Red Hat is almost uniquely important in the Open Source ecosystem. Their source code contributions and / or the number of significant project that they have founded are evidence of this.
Can you name even a single company with the same impact? You certainly cannot name tens of thousands.
Often, when somebody moves the goal posts to avoid addressing an argument head on, it is to intentionally mislead. I hope that is not the case here.