3 ms·
It lets them focus on more enterprise-y features and improve overall security. Such a minor amount of work saved, if any, and it's all for cost savings, with a
by b112 3y ago
It lets them focus on more enterprise-y features and improve overall security.
Such a minor amount of work saved, if any, and it's all for cost savings, with a reduced user experience.
Yup. Redhat as IBM.
Modern IBM has fallen so far, and could never, ever create or originate something like redhat.
So buy it, they did, and now legions of managers preen, and describe how to "improve" redhat, each cutting, shaving cost, impressed with themselves.
And don't believe the "hands off" junk, they still have purse string control.
- toyg 3y agoAs much as I might dislike IBM, Canonical is doing the same thing. Many established distros are pushing containers for very practical reasons - they shift significant amounts of packaging work from distros to developers. It's annoying but it makes sense.
- JohnFen 3y agoBut the packaging work is most of the value that distros give. If they aren't doing that, why do we need distros at all?
- toyg 3y ago> If they aren't doing that, why do we need distros at all? - To set up system daemons in a sane way. You're not going to containerize systemd. - To set up and maintain desktop primitives. You're not going to containerize Wayland or audio systems. - To integrate all these containers in a decent manner. Flatpak and its ilk have limitations that will have to be smoothed over by distros. Will that mean a consolidation, since differences over packaging become less relevant? Maybe. I'm pretty sure we will still have significant differences between The Way RedHat Likes To Do Things, The Way Debian Likes To Do Things, The Way Canonical Likes To Do Things etc etc