4 ms·
I'm not going to call Rocky or Alma "dirtbags" (does anybody use that phrase these days?) but comparing what Red Hat does to Rocky is misleading. RHEL Clones:
by jzb 3y ago
I'm not going to call Rocky or Alma "dirtbags" (does anybody use that phrase these days?) but comparing what Red Hat does to Rocky is misleading.
RHEL Clones: Take finished source code, rebuild, test, release.
RHEL: Work upstream to develop features / submit features upstream before inclusion in RHEL, maintain specific versions of upstream, test hundreds of upstreams together to make sure they can be shipped together as an operating system, develop "glue" software like Anaconda to install + manage the whole thing, take source, build, test, release, accept bugs, start over again for next minor release or major release as needed.
And, of course, this elides all the certification work that makes RHEL an attractive enough project to rebuild in the first place because people want very specifically a RHEL compatible distribution to run an application or applications on top of.
What people get pissed at Red Hat about isn't that they don't get to access the source. They're pissed they don't get the convenience. Largely speaking, the people who get pissed aren't concerned about Free Software, either - they just want easy to run binaries. As I understand it "get binaries for free" is not mandated by the four freedoms. The source code is still out there for people to study, change, use, and redistribute. That seems entirely compatible with the free software ethos - but incompatible with the freeloader ethos.
- fatherlinnux 3y agoI read this comment, said to myself hell yeah, this person gets it, then realized it was my friend JZB!!! On point my friend, on point!
- NegativeK 3y agoRocky and Alma are doing exactly what CentOS pre-Stream did for _six_ years. Now they're frustrated that their decision to kill the CentOS idea didn't stick? Red Hat might have the legal right to gate their product, but it seems really slimy to build RHEL on the work of who knows how many people that publish it for free and then to put road blocks around their derivative. I don't really like reductionist blaming, but I feel basically forced to wonder what Red Hat would be doing if IBM wasn't involved.
- jzb 3y ago"it seems really slimy to build RHEL on the work of who knows how many people that publish it for free and then to put road blocks around their derivative" I'm always curious that people get angry at Red Hat profiting on the work of others, but few people get angry at the companies that use a RHEL clone to run their business and pay nothing and contribute nothing. Red Hat is still releasing source code. The only thing that it's not doing is making it super-convenient to rebuild exactly its product. Seriously - for most purposes CentOS Stream is just fine if what you want is a distro that feels like RHEL. Its one drawback is that it's not a one-for-one clone of RHEL, which generally only really matters if you are using it to run your business. Which gets me back to - why are people so pissed at Red Hat but not all the organizations that make money using RHEL but don't pay towards its development?
- sliken 3y ago> Red Hat is still releasing source code. The only thing that it's not doing is making it super-convenient to rebuild exactly its product. Releasing only to their customers and only if not redistributed. If you held redhat to the same standard for the open source they redistribute they couldn't exist.
- ilyt 3y ago> Rocky and Alma are doing exactly what CentOS pre-Stream did for _six_ years. Now they're frustrated that their decision to kill the CentOS idea didn't stick? CentOS wasn't selling support contracts tho. Not that I think anything they are doing is in any way wrong mind you.
- SemioticStandrd 3y agoTo be fair, neither is Rocky.
- robertjglick 3y agohttps://sam.gov/opp/2e0365ce1e3c4c179b50fb15573d68e4/view https://sam.gov/opp/2e0365ce1e3c4c179b50fb15573d68e4/view