5 ms·
It is. Rocky Linux is not in the same space like RHEL. They cant dictate the market prices. I very much doubt Rocky is a sustainable business model. Hell even
by mathverse 4y ago
It is. Rocky Linux is not in the same space like RHEL. They cant dictate the market prices.
I very much doubt Rocky is a sustainable business model. Hell even RHEL was not...
This is the aftermath of the enterprise/FOSS (pay for support/whatever model that never really worked) war on prices and we are basically going back to the era for paying for software and some people and businesses dont like it.
- ilyt 4y agoRHEL did just fine before IBM bought it, and most of the shittiness started after the buyout.
- least 4y agoI don't see how this is leeching. They did pay for the work to get the distribution ready for their needs (unless they didn't, in which case Greg Kurter must be a saint), that work ended up back upstream. Is your argument solely that Rocky Linux didn't extract the maximum amount of money they could from their client, or is there something else I'm missing here?
- zamalek 4y agoAlso, let's not forget that he also said that he's fine with paying for support - just not CPU cores (which also does imply the RT kernel work was paid for). Paying for support is categorically not leeching. > I shouldn't be forced to pay subscription fees… I have no problem to pay support [fees]
- leetnewb 4y agoThe last time Red Hat saw an annual revenue decline was 1999. Cash Flow grew more or less in tandem with revenue. I don't know what the future would have looked like for Red Hat, but the other enterprise Linux companies seem to be doing well.