4 ms·
I see Canonical as a slightly worse Red Hat - they both do their own thing for the sake of it being theirs (NIH syndrome to the max), Canonical just occasionall
by sofixa 4y ago
I see Canonical as a slightly worse Red Hat - they both do their own thing for the sake of it being theirs (NIH syndrome to the max), Canonical just occasionally use a proprietary component as an upsell (compared to Red Hat that rely only on an Enterprise sticker as a differentiator). But fundamentally, what exactly is the difference? Both force their newly decided stuff on everyone and all associated distros - be it systemd, podman, dnf, regardless if it's ready or not (podman is still not feature compete with docker, and has regular breaking changes making it hard to for associated tooling to keep up, but it is forced down everyone's throats regardless).
- nix23 4y agoWell Red Hat goes it's own way, i am not always a big fan of it, but at least everything they buy and create gets opensource'd. So yeah totally on your side here.
- bonzini 4y agoSystemd was integrated in Arch before even Fedora adopted it. Suse does not use dnf and in fact libsolv was originally written by Suse and only then adopted by RH. I just don't see how RH forces them on anybody that isn't a user of Fedora, RHEL and derivatives.