20
all 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

So he reckons that without locking out free downstream users, Red Hat would go tits up and the whole Linux ecosystem would fall into the hands of hackers and hobbyists? Fine by me.

I like Jeff Geerling's response:

Red Hat: those who use open source code and don't contribute back are "a real threat to open source companies everywhere"

I call them: users.

I fight for the users.

[-] TheTango@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't like that response at all. Jeff conflating developers and users does nothing to resolve the issues and differences in the RHEL clone community that led to this decision.

I'm going to say it: Jeff is using this issue to increase his social media footprint. I'm bored of his content and he's done NOTHING to help the community figure out a way forward. He's just saying some loud things over and over.

[-] astigma@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Hmm yes because doubling down in face of public backlash has never gone wrong before 🤔

[-] greyhathero@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Unpopular opinion. I agree with him.

As long as they continue to follow the gpl which they are, and contribute back to upstream I do not see the issue. It is entirely within their right to charge for free as in freedom not free as in beer software. This is pretty much exactly what the gpl says.

That being said this could be the start of a slippery slope for red hat and Foss business models and will certainly be keeping an eye on it.

[-] fiasco@possumpat.io 5 points 1 year ago

I feel the other thing missing from all this Discourse is, IBM made UNIX. If they want to act all proprietary, why don't they abandon Linux and return to their own operating system?

That's right, because of the enormous amount of free labor they get from the open source community.

[-] marmalade@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Idk, on the one hand I could see the argument against organizations dodging the Red Hat fees by choosing free downstream, but then again, like, everything that RHEL does was always available? The reason you'd pay is for the support you'd get from them?

To be honest I never really understood why you'd specifically want something like CentOS over say, Debian - I mean, outside of I guess, .rpm packaging?

[-] lucidmushr00m@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I've often seen set ups where Prod is RedHat because support, and Test and Dev environments are CentOS to avoid the fees on less important environments.

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
20 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

34478 readers
422 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS