9 ms·

Leader: "What have Red Hat ever done for us?" Enthusiast #1: "Well, they developed and continue to support Red Hat Enterprise Linux, one of the most popular en

Leader: "What have Red Hat ever done for us?" Enthusiast #1: "Well, they developed and continue to support Red Hat Enterprise Linux, one of the most popular enterprise Linux distributions." Leader: "Oh, well obviously we need that. That's true." Enthusiast #2: "And don't forget about the Fedora Project! It's a community-driven distribution that helps test out new technologies before they make their way into RHEL." Leader: "Oh, right, the Fedora Project. Yes, yes, we should be grateful for that." Enthusiast #3: "Plus, they've made significant contributions to the development of the Linux kernel, especially when it comes to virtualization, security, and performance." Leader: "Ah, yes, the kernel. You're absolutely right, that's a big one." Enthusiast #4: "And what about all the open-source software projects they've developed and supported, like the GNOME, JBoss and Ansible?" Leader: "Well, obviously we couldn't get by without those." Enthusiast #5: "And let's not forget about their collaboration with other companies and organizations to advance open-source initiatives, like OpenStack and Kubernetes." Leader: "Yes, yes, very impressive. But apart from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the Fedora Project, contributions to the Linux kernel, open-source software projects, and collaboration with other organizations, what have Red Hat ever done for us?"

quickthrower2 4y ago
systemd?
- dralley 4y ago
  pipewire
- EntrePrescott 4y ago
  given the strongly diverging views and controversial nature of forum discussions whenever the subject "systemd" comes up, I feel like I have to ask, for the sake of clarity: was the mention of systemd meant positively (in favor of Red Hat) or negatively/sarcastically?
  - kasabali 4y ago
    yes
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    On the positive to neutral spectrum
op00to 4y ago
Leader: "Great. We've embraced RHEL, and decided to toss out VMware for RHV, just like you've been asking." Enthusiast #6: "Uhhh ..... about that." Leader: "Oh, not good huh? Well, certainly Red Hat Storage is a great take-out for our expensive proprietary storage units!" Enthusiast #7: not present because the whole BU was moved to IBM
- markandrewj 4y ago
  I have been experiencing this personally, although it's more accurate to say the RHV/oVirt team was moved on to OpenShift Virtualization (KubeVirt).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hulitu 4y ago
> advocated for the use of open standards and interoperability systemd, pulseaudio, freedesktop have bought much pain in the way of open standards and interoperability.
- jmclnx 4y ago
  >systemd, pulseaudio, freedesktop have bought much pain in the way of open standards and interoperability. You were down voted, so I will be glad to join you in the swamps :) I fully agree with that statement, with freedesktop being by far the worst of the bunch. Seems these so-called "Open Groups" are doing all they can to eliminate the BSDs and probably some rather unique Linux Distros along the way. And yes, I stand by this and I doubt my opinion will ever change. So let the down-votes begin :)
- pxc 4y ago
  For people trying to run desktop BSD, I think systemd has caused some real pain. For most Linux users and sysadmins, systemd has been helpful in the way it has standardized service management. The freedesktop standards just seem to be offensive to BSD people as a matter of taste, though. At its worst, PulseAudio was basically fine but pushed on some users by their distros before it was mature. And even then, Red Hat has also driven the development of its replacement, PipeWire, which has been widely recognized as kickass pretty much from the get-go.
  - account42 4y ago
    > For people trying to run desktop BSD, I think systemd has caused some real pain. For most Linux users and sysadmins, systemd has been helpful in the way it has standardized service management. It only standardized anything if you deny anything else exists.
    - ilyt 4y ago
      The alternatives were frankly shit in comparison and we used at least 2 different ones on sysv systems (monit and daemontools)
midoridensha 4y ago
I can do just fine without GNOME. In fact, I think the Linux ecosystem would have been much better off if it had never been developed, or maybe left to die after the Qt license issues were sorted out. As for the popularity of RHEL, how much of that is because the US government is probably their biggest customer, and basically mandates its use for any application needing Linux? That's not a grassroots type of popularity.
- EntrePrescott 4y ago
  > if it had never been developed In all fairness: Gnome was absolutely great at its beginnings… until the clique around Havoc Pennington took over and decided they know better than the users what's good for them and ruined Gnome… thus earning them the affectionate title "interface nazis" dished out by Linus Torvalds. https://www.cio.com/article/220271/11-technologies-that-tick-off-linus-torvalds.html#gnome https://www.cio.com/article/220271/11-technologies-that-tick... > after the Qt license issues were sorted out Much as I'd agree that GTK has proven to not be the way (either), I don't see the "Qt license issues" as being "sorted out" at all. It did look like it for a short while after Nokia bought Trolltech and made Qt available under LGPLv2.1, but that didn't last long: Shortly after, Microsoft managed to place their mole Stephen Elop onto the CEO seat of Nokia, and Elop methodically ruined Nokia in preparation for a Microsoft takeover and threw out Qt (which represented cross-platform, a concept Microsoft always saw as as a threat to their business model), replacing it with the ill-fated Windows Phone platform. Under Digia, and even more so once splitted out as QTCOM, The licensing focus of Qt has shifted from "make it more open so as to gain wide traction" (the strategy under Nokia) to "try to force devs into commercial licensing schemes and monetize to the max you can milk out of it", and it has been a sore downhill slide into a shitty situation. The "Qt license issues" we have today aren't the same as way back then in the QPL days of early KDE-vs-Gnome forum wars, but they are at least as bad imho. A lot of developers who used to develop mainly with Qt (me included) have since jumped ship because of that and prefer to avoid Qt too now, though the sad reality is that while there are better alternatives depending on the project, there isn't really a good free cross-platform allround alternative for Qt either. I think there is really a big window of opportunity and gap to be filled by a new modern cross-platform UI toolkit.
sverhagen 4y ago
I felt I was reading toward some sort of punchline, but it didn't come, or I didn't get it. Like how the leader acknowledges all the goodness, but still doesn't want to pay for it, perhaps. Though maybe that's not really a Red Hat problem?
- eloisant 4y ago
  That's a reference to the Monty Python's "what have the romans ever done for us?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
  - pwenzel 4y ago
    The Judean People’s Front. PSSHHH!
  - pjbster 4y ago
    An Absolute Classic scene but I also quite like this take on it: https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1162996543697252357?s=20 https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1162996543697252357?s=20
- Thev00d00 4y ago
  You're right, I think I made a mistake by adding the last block, edited it to end on the leader, which I think makes it funnier.
Scubabear68 4y ago
I LOL’d a bit at JBoss, only because how radically history changed from App Servers ruling the world to practically disappearing over night into the maw of Spring boot (and it’s ancestors).
- stuff4ben 4y ago
  Openshift is the new Websphere/JBoss.
- toyg 4y ago
  We hated appservers so much, we reinvented their whole "managed deployment" thing at the OS level (with containers/docker).
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Just wait until WASM containers become the next big thing (TM).
znpy 4y ago
Red Hat basically made linux on the server a reality. It provided a solid and serious corporate backing to that idea, providing not only software implementation and bug fixes, but also (and maybe more importantly) guidance, training, consulting. Basically bridging the tech world with the corporate world. All this in a time where the computing industry was divided among Microsoft and proprietary unix vendors. Anybody not acknowledging these points would be dishonest at best.
- ghaff 4y ago
  IBM's big endorsement in early 2000 made a big difference as well. But whether or not you you accept the premise that an open source "unix" was inevitable, a lot of companies in the late 90s were at least hedging on a world where Windows basically conquered all. (Sun being the notable exception among the systems companies.)
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    And the company that shouldn't be named on HN, Oracle.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Oracle came later though. IBM was in 2000. Oracle Linux didn't come until 2006.
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        I wasn't talking about Oracle Linux. > 1998: Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle announce their support for Linux. -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux
        ghaff 4y ago
        Lots of companies "supported" Linux. IBM's big announcement in early 2000 was significantly higher profile than what most large companies were doing at that time however.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

quickthrower2 4y ago

systemd?

dralley 4y ago
pipewire
EntrePrescott 4y ago
given the strongly diverging views and controversial nature of forum discussions whenever the subject "systemd" comes up, I feel like I have to ask, for the sake of clarity: was the mention of systemd meant positively (in favor of Red Hat) or negatively/sarcastically?
- kasabali 4y ago
  yes
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  On the positive to neutral spectrum

op00to 4y ago

Leader: "Great. We've embraced RHEL, and decided to toss out VMware for RHV, just like you've been asking." Enthusiast #6: "Uhhh ..... about that." Leader: "Oh, not good huh? Well, certainly Red Hat Storage is a great take-out for our expensive proprietary storage units!" Enthusiast #7: not present because the whole BU was moved to IBM

markandrewj 4y ago
I have been experiencing this personally, although it's more accurate to say the RHV/oVirt team was moved on to OpenShift Virtualization (KubeVirt).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hulitu 4y ago

> advocated for the use of open standards and interoperability systemd, pulseaudio, freedesktop have bought much pain in the way of open standards and interoperability.

jmclnx 4y ago
>systemd, pulseaudio, freedesktop have bought much pain in the way of open standards and interoperability. You were down voted, so I will be glad to join you in the swamps :) I fully agree with that statement, with freedesktop being by far the worst of the bunch. Seems these so-called "Open Groups" are doing all they can to eliminate the BSDs and probably some rather unique Linux Distros along the way. And yes, I stand by this and I doubt my opinion will ever change. So let the down-votes begin :)
pxc 4y ago
For people trying to run desktop BSD, I think systemd has caused some real pain. For most Linux users and sysadmins, systemd has been helpful in the way it has standardized service management. The freedesktop standards just seem to be offensive to BSD people as a matter of taste, though. At its worst, PulseAudio was basically fine but pushed on some users by their distros before it was mature. And even then, Red Hat has also driven the development of its replacement, PipeWire, which has been widely recognized as kickass pretty much from the get-go.
- account42 4y ago
  > For people trying to run desktop BSD, I think systemd has caused some real pain. For most Linux users and sysadmins, systemd has been helpful in the way it has standardized service management. It only standardized anything if you deny anything else exists.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    The alternatives were frankly shit in comparison and we used at least 2 different ones on sysv systems (monit and daemontools)

midoridensha 4y ago

I can do just fine without GNOME. In fact, I think the Linux ecosystem would have been much better off if it had never been developed, or maybe left to die after the Qt license issues were sorted out. As for the popularity of RHEL, how much of that is because the US government is probably their biggest customer, and basically mandates its use for any application needing Linux? That's not a grassroots type of popularity.

EntrePrescott 4y ago
> if it had never been developed In all fairness: Gnome was absolutely great at its beginnings… until the clique around Havoc Pennington took over and decided they know better than the users what's good for them and ruined Gnome… thus earning them the affectionate title "interface nazis" dished out by Linus Torvalds. https://www.cio.com/article/220271/11-technologies-that-tick-off-linus-torvalds.html#gnome https://www.cio.com/article/220271/11-technologies-that-tick... > after the Qt license issues were sorted out Much as I'd agree that GTK has proven to not be the way (either), I don't see the "Qt license issues" as being "sorted out" at all. It did look like it for a short while after Nokia bought Trolltech and made Qt available under LGPLv2.1, but that didn't last long: Shortly after, Microsoft managed to place their mole Stephen Elop onto the CEO seat of Nokia, and Elop methodically ruined Nokia in preparation for a Microsoft takeover and threw out Qt (which represented cross-platform, a concept Microsoft always saw as as a threat to their business model), replacing it with the ill-fated Windows Phone platform. Under Digia, and even more so once splitted out as QTCOM, The licensing focus of Qt has shifted from "make it more open so as to gain wide traction" (the strategy under Nokia) to "try to force devs into commercial licensing schemes and monetize to the max you can milk out of it", and it has been a sore downhill slide into a shitty situation. The "Qt license issues" we have today aren't the same as way back then in the QPL days of early KDE-vs-Gnome forum wars, but they are at least as bad imho. A lot of developers who used to develop mainly with Qt (me included) have since jumped ship because of that and prefer to avoid Qt too now, though the sad reality is that while there are better alternatives depending on the project, there isn't really a good free cross-platform allround alternative for Qt either. I think there is really a big window of opportunity and gap to be filled by a new modern cross-platform UI toolkit.

sverhagen 4y ago

I felt I was reading toward some sort of punchline, but it didn't come, or I didn't get it. Like how the leader acknowledges all the goodness, but still doesn't want to pay for it, perhaps. Though maybe that's not really a Red Hat problem?

eloisant 4y ago
That's a reference to the Monty Python's "what have the romans ever done for us?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
- pwenzel 4y ago
  The Judean People’s Front. PSSHHH!
- pjbster 4y ago
  An Absolute Classic scene but I also quite like this take on it: https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1162996543697252357?s=20 https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1162996543697252357?s=20
Thev00d00 4y ago
You're right, I think I made a mistake by adding the last block, edited it to end on the leader, which I think makes it funnier.

Scubabear68 4y ago

I LOL’d a bit at JBoss, only because how radically history changed from App Servers ruling the world to practically disappearing over night into the maw of Spring boot (and it’s ancestors).

stuff4ben 4y ago
Openshift is the new Websphere/JBoss.
toyg 4y ago
We hated appservers so much, we reinvented their whole "managed deployment" thing at the OS level (with containers/docker).
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Just wait until WASM containers become the next big thing (TM).

znpy 4y ago

Red Hat basically made linux on the server a reality. It provided a solid and serious corporate backing to that idea, providing not only software implementation and bug fixes, but also (and maybe more importantly) guidance, training, consulting. Basically bridging the tech world with the corporate world. All this in a time where the computing industry was divided among Microsoft and proprietary unix vendors. Anybody not acknowledging these points would be dishonest at best.

ghaff 4y ago
IBM's big endorsement in early 2000 made a big difference as well. But whether or not you you accept the premise that an open source "unix" was inevitable, a lot of companies in the late 90s were at least hedging on a world where Windows basically conquered all. (Sun being the notable exception among the systems companies.)
- pjmlp 4y ago
  And the company that shouldn't be named on HN, Oracle.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Oracle came later though. IBM was in 2000. Oracle Linux didn't come until 2006.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      I wasn't talking about Oracle Linux. > 1998: Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle announce their support for Linux. -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Lots of companies "supported" Linux. IBM's big announcement in early 2000 was significantly higher profile than what most large companies were doing at that time however.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]