5 ms·

Red Hat: 'Yes, we undercut Oracle with hidden Linux patches'

25 points by tuxychandru 16y ago

chalst 16y ago
Quoting Russ Herold from the article: Nothing in Red Hat's new approach prevents a person from running a local version-control system, containing the pristine kernel at point A, and the Red Hat variant which we might call point B. Then one runs a 'diff' in that version-control system between A and B, and starts reading the diffs to see what is happening. Over time, both the pristine kernel, and the patched Red Hat versions will vary, and one will get a sense for which 'diff' parts matter, and which are cosmetic cleanups. This actually sounds labour intensive. From the Centos mailing list, Johnny Hughes writes: That is not to say I like the changes, as it will have impacts ... but as long as they only do it to the kernel, it is not a big problem. http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/497467-will-centos-become-obsolete-now-because-changes-red-hat-implementing.html http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/497467-will-centos-becom...
pessimizer 16y ago
I wish I could say that I don't think this is compatible with the GPL, simply because I don't like it, but I can't. This seems like a good move for their bottom line. It'll suck for CentOS users though.
- acdha 16y ago
  CentOS users are basically free-loading, though, so if this bothers them they'd probably be better switching to a pure-community effort like Debian. If they're using CentOS because their company uses it, their boss can also pony up for some Red Hat licenses if they encounter problems.
  - davidw 16y ago
    Once you release your work under an open source license, you've pretty much declared that "free-riding" is ok, to a certain extent. I mean, if you look at it, Red hat itself gets a lot of free input. Although they also do contribute a lot themselves, I'm sure they receive more open source software than they create.
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      Yes, Complaints about non-profit groups "free-loading" on GPL projects are ... "impressive"... What part of "free" don't they understand?
    - acdha 16y ago
      Open source != support. CentOS is using GPLed code, which is perfectly fine, but they have not reason to expect Red Hat to help them support it or otherwise do anything other than release changes. In this case, the value added by CentOS is relatively small - mostly hosting - and so it's not particularly persuasive when people complain about Red Hat, which currently provides considerably more to the community even without detailed change logs.
- logic 16y ago
  Or not at all. CentOS rebuilds the kernel SRPM as it sits; they're bugwise-compatible with RHEL. This is a complete non-issue to CentOS.
  - danieldk 16y ago
    Maybe not for CentOS as a project, but it can be disadvantageous for CentOS as a community. If you are running CentOS, and run into some new bug, you cannot easily back out or cherry-pick patches. A more interesting question is how this affects Oracle. In Unbreakable Linux 5 they replaced Red Hat Enterprise Linux' 2.6.18 kernel by their own custom 2.6.32 build. Since Red Hat is pretty agressive at getting changes merged in mainline, Oracle can profit from their work anyway.
- DaveMebs 16y ago
  Why do people seem to think this is so bad for CentOS users? It seems to me that if the CentOS devs quoted don't find it to be a big deal, it probably isn't. They know better than you or I.
  - pessimizer 16y ago
    I said "users" for a reason. It's just about choosing the patches that you want to apply, or if something you're running breaks, backing out of the particular patch that screwed it up. It really increases the value of a Red Hat license in my eyes.
- danieldk 16y ago
  IANAL, but the GPL version 2 is incredibly vague about this: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. One could argue that having a patch set or git repository is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, especially considering how upstream provides their sources. But as is often the case with the GPL, it is nearly impossible to understand its implications.
  - xiongchiamiov 16y ago
    The FSF actually says that, to comply with the GPL, you must distribute full source, not diffs. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceI...

25 points by tuxychandru 16y ago

Quoting Russ Herold from the article: Nothing in Red Hat's new approach prevents a person from running a local version-control system, containing the pristine kernel at point A, and the Red Hat variant which we might call point B. Then one runs a 'diff' in that version-control system between A and B, and starts reading the diffs to see what is happening. Over time, both the pristine kernel, and the patched Red Hat versions will vary, and one will get a sense for which 'diff' parts matter, and which are cosmetic cleanups. This actually sounds labour intensive. From the Centos mailing list, Johnny Hughes writes: That is not to say I like the changes, as it will have impacts ... but as long as they only do it to the kernel, it is not a big problem. http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/497467-will-centos-become-obsolete-now-because-changes-red-hat-implementing.html http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/497467-will-centos-becom...

pessimizer 16y ago

I wish I could say that I don't think this is compatible with the GPL, simply because I don't like it, but I can't. This seems like a good move for their bottom line. It'll suck for CentOS users though.

acdha 16y ago
CentOS users are basically free-loading, though, so if this bothers them they'd probably be better switching to a pure-community effort like Debian. If they're using CentOS because their company uses it, their boss can also pony up for some Red Hat licenses if they encounter problems.
- davidw 16y ago
  Once you release your work under an open source license, you've pretty much declared that "free-riding" is ok, to a certain extent. I mean, if you look at it, Red hat itself gets a lot of free input. Although they also do contribute a lot themselves, I'm sure they receive more open source software than they create.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Yes, Complaints about non-profit groups "free-loading" on GPL projects are ... "impressive"... What part of "free" don't they understand?
  - acdha 16y ago
    Open source != support. CentOS is using GPLed code, which is perfectly fine, but they have not reason to expect Red Hat to help them support it or otherwise do anything other than release changes. In this case, the value added by CentOS is relatively small - mostly hosting - and so it's not particularly persuasive when people complain about Red Hat, which currently provides considerably more to the community even without detailed change logs.
logic 16y ago
Or not at all. CentOS rebuilds the kernel SRPM as it sits; they're bugwise-compatible with RHEL. This is a complete non-issue to CentOS.
- danieldk 16y ago
  Maybe not for CentOS as a project, but it can be disadvantageous for CentOS as a community. If you are running CentOS, and run into some new bug, you cannot easily back out or cherry-pick patches. A more interesting question is how this affects Oracle. In Unbreakable Linux 5 they replaced Red Hat Enterprise Linux' 2.6.18 kernel by their own custom 2.6.32 build. Since Red Hat is pretty agressive at getting changes merged in mainline, Oracle can profit from their work anyway.
DaveMebs 16y ago
Why do people seem to think this is so bad for CentOS users? It seems to me that if the CentOS devs quoted don't find it to be a big deal, it probably isn't. They know better than you or I.
- pessimizer 16y ago
  I said "users" for a reason. It's just about choosing the patches that you want to apply, or if something you're running breaks, backing out of the particular patch that screwed it up. It really increases the value of a Red Hat license in my eyes.
danieldk 16y ago
IANAL, but the GPL version 2 is incredibly vague about this: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. One could argue that having a patch set or git repository is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, especially considering how upstream provides their sources. But as is often the case with the GPL, it is nearly impossible to understand its implications.
- xiongchiamiov 16y ago
  The FSF actually says that, to comply with the GPL, you must distribute full source, not diffs. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceI...