4 ms·

Red Hat raises entitlement limit for free Dev Sub for Individuals from 16 to 240

30 points by mroche 3y ago

chomp 3y ago
I wasn’t aware it was higher than one, this is pretty cool. However, despite the size of the bone they’re tossing, I don’t think this is enough to shake the image of a company trying to cash out its good will. I’m very skeptical of using EL for the foreseeable future, including the rebuilds.
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  >> I’m very skeptical of using EL for the foreseeable future, including the rebuilds. Agreed. RHEL is the replacement cash cow for AIX. They can't milk it for as much profit if others can get milk elsewhere.
  - rektide 3y ago
    But the cow won't survive if they de-open the source. You can't keep mindshare with un-open Linuxes.
404mm 3y ago
TIL RedHat developer subscription is free (with mandatory re-registration every 12 months) https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux# https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-...
- mroche 3y ago
  Yep, and the subscription provides so much more than RHEL... it gives a lot. A small sampling of product entitlements: * RHEL * RHEL EUS (stick on a minor version for 2 years) * Ansible Automation Platform * A slew of Red Hat middleware solutions
  - justinclift 3y ago
    RHEL aside, are any of those not based upon OSS projects that people could use without needing RH anyway? Or is the value in being able to access the documentation for things, which is behind a login-wall these days?
    - mroche 3y ago
      The only aspect I would be iffy on (mainly because I've never looked) are the things you get just for being a Red Hat subscription holder. These are the Red Hat hosted services, like the Customer Portal and Hybrid Cloud Console (Insights, etc). But the actual products you get from the subscriptions? Yeah, those are all open source software with available upstream. As for value, the hosted stuff is actually pretty cool and helpful for getting proactive analysis, suggestions, alerts, etc of your environments. In general using the Red Hat product over the upstream provides a handful of benefits. Usually the software is pretty well stabilized, you're not getting random updates that require massive changes. Deployment can also be easier than upstream, or at least better documented. For example, deploying and maintaining AAP is a breeze, and can be done on traditional servers instead of k8s. It provides all the disparate pieces in one place, rather than needing you to deploy AWX, Galaxy-ng, Pinakes, Keycloak, etc on your own manually. The other non-software pieces, like the knowledge base, discussions, docs, hosted apps, etc are all effectively bonus material of a sort. But they are really good bonus material to have.
    - kriberg 3y ago
      RedHat creates and drives development of many OSS projects. FreeIPA, strimzi, systemd are some examples. Anybody can use these projects without using the RedHat labeled version. But none of this projects would be well maintained without RedHat.
- happymellon 3y ago
  > It is a program and an offering designed for individual developers, available through the Red Hat Developer program. On the previous conversation about this change, it was was pointed out that developers have to be individuals, and that if you are an organisation that uses RedHat you can't use this. However I haven't been able to get anyone to confirm what the developer cost would be in that situation or if it is still free.
  - Conan_Kudo 3y ago
    There's a separate page about the developer subscription for teams in organizations: https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2022/05/10/access-rhel-developer-teams-subscription https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2022/05/10/access-rhe...
    - happymellon 3y ago
      Ah, awesome thanks. I think that will probably be more relevant for a lot of organisations that have some RHEL on their prod boxes but don't want to spend so much getting it on their dev/test environments.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
e145bc455f1 3y ago
License is valid only for a year after which you need to re-register. IBM might one day decide to put an end to it and you would have to either pay up or migrate all your servers. After they killed off CentOS and Rocky/Alma i wouldn't trust them.
Woodi 3y ago
OK, this is time. We need new RedHat - distro/firm that DO development and pays for it. So earns too... Which non-rpm based distro could be base for this ? Becouse rpm-based distros are (except RH) are pure joke, a re-compilators. Debian if you want to start from scratch, Ubuntu could be if they finally stard developing source code instead of looking something to sell. Not Arch, not Void - not business mentality. Maybe Void as a base after revriting everything into musl, including things like Oracle ;) NixOs is in best technical possition but so far just sources (big) set and no comparable to RH development expertise... Actually no one have RH-like expertise as far as I know. So new business-level distro needs funding for 15 years or so ? "Back to the basics!" then :) Use stable, backcompatible, futureproof technologies ! C, C++, Perl (hehe he), git and maybe finally Lua, D and Julia ? In US Ruby probably too. Drop non-sense things like Gnome and moust of WWW insanity. Or just wait what new IBM will bring to rest of us... Like Winland with it's by-design over-complications and imposibilities to have stable env.
- Conan_Kudo 3y ago
  > Which non-rpm based distro could be base for this ? Becouse rpm-based distros are (except RH) are pure joke [...] > Actually no one have RH-like expertise as far as I know. So what is SUSE, chopped liver? They've been around for slightly longer and do a lot upstream too. Red Hat and SUSE have been around doing a lot, and it's a shame that so many people don't want to pay for actual commercial Linux expertise. :(
  - Woodi 3y ago
    > So what is SUSE, chopped liver? I didn't mentioned SUSE because: - they are re-compilators. With long history and didn't sold in recent years, yes, but still small compared to RH. You can hear they do things, have customers not only from Germany so they have a lot of expertise but to my nose they are not realy self-sufficient without RH. They are more like small mechanic shop close to global factory - low throughput. Am I hand waving too much ? It's becouse SUSE pro&cons are not realy known. So moust likely they are small shop. Even if 2nd after RH. - they use rpm's so with a bit of pressure or becouse of management wanting to cover asses they or their customers will easilly roll back to IBM - SUSE do not look like wanting to be global. Not saying it is easy or even possible without controlling your own cpu's production... Also: - I asked for non-rpm distros - I personally am burned out with rpms since 90's - blame RH for not implementing Debian like net features years after Debian did it - git repo is better binary package. Source tarballs for LTS versions, done. IMO. And tar can be replaced by whatever in "tarbals"... > Red Hat and SUSE have been around doing a lot, and it's a shame that so many people don't want to pay for actual commercial Linux expertise. :( Agree. But easy to understood: a) MS is monopoly, Apple do not count as platform for development (multi-billion corporations don't count and even them do not develop on Apple - just modern "terminals" :) ) b) no serious RH alternative - as in: security and open source code development, including new features and apps
klysm 3y ago
How many examples do we need of companies trying to cash in like this before we stick to things like Debian?

30 points by mroche 3y ago

I wasn’t aware it was higher than one, this is pretty cool. However, despite the size of the bone they’re tossing, I don’t think this is enough to shake the image of a company trying to cash out its good will. I’m very skeptical of using EL for the foreseeable future, including the rebuilds.

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
>> I’m very skeptical of using EL for the foreseeable future, including the rebuilds. Agreed. RHEL is the replacement cash cow for AIX. They can't milk it for as much profit if others can get milk elsewhere.
- rektide 3y ago
  But the cow won't survive if they de-open the source. You can't keep mindshare with un-open Linuxes.

404mm 3y ago

TIL RedHat developer subscription is free (with mandatory re-registration every 12 months) https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux# https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-...

mroche 3y ago
Yep, and the subscription provides so much more than RHEL... it gives a lot. A small sampling of product entitlements: * RHEL * RHEL EUS (stick on a minor version for 2 years) * Ansible Automation Platform * A slew of Red Hat middleware solutions
- justinclift 3y ago
  RHEL aside, are any of those not based upon OSS projects that people could use without needing RH anyway? Or is the value in being able to access the documentation for things, which is behind a login-wall these days?
  - mroche 3y ago
    The only aspect I would be iffy on (mainly because I've never looked) are the things you get just for being a Red Hat subscription holder. These are the Red Hat hosted services, like the Customer Portal and Hybrid Cloud Console (Insights, etc). But the actual products you get from the subscriptions? Yeah, those are all open source software with available upstream. As for value, the hosted stuff is actually pretty cool and helpful for getting proactive analysis, suggestions, alerts, etc of your environments. In general using the Red Hat product over the upstream provides a handful of benefits. Usually the software is pretty well stabilized, you're not getting random updates that require massive changes. Deployment can also be easier than upstream, or at least better documented. For example, deploying and maintaining AAP is a breeze, and can be done on traditional servers instead of k8s. It provides all the disparate pieces in one place, rather than needing you to deploy AWX, Galaxy-ng, Pinakes, Keycloak, etc on your own manually. The other non-software pieces, like the knowledge base, discussions, docs, hosted apps, etc are all effectively bonus material of a sort. But they are really good bonus material to have.
  - kriberg 3y ago
    RedHat creates and drives development of many OSS projects. FreeIPA, strimzi, systemd are some examples. Anybody can use these projects without using the RedHat labeled version. But none of this projects would be well maintained without RedHat.
happymellon 3y ago
> It is a program and an offering designed for individual developers, available through the Red Hat Developer program. On the previous conversation about this change, it was was pointed out that developers have to be individuals, and that if you are an organisation that uses RedHat you can't use this. However I haven't been able to get anyone to confirm what the developer cost would be in that situation or if it is still free.
- Conan_Kudo 3y ago
  There's a separate page about the developer subscription for teams in organizations: https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2022/05/10/access-rhel-developer-teams-subscription https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2022/05/10/access-rhe...
  - happymellon 3y ago
    Ah, awesome thanks. I think that will probably be more relevant for a lot of organisations that have some RHEL on their prod boxes but don't want to spend so much getting it on their dev/test environments.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

e145bc455f1 3y ago

License is valid only for a year after which you need to re-register. IBM might one day decide to put an end to it and you would have to either pay up or migrate all your servers. After they killed off CentOS and Rocky/Alma i wouldn't trust them.

Woodi 3y ago

OK, this is time. We need new RedHat - distro/firm that DO development and pays for it. So earns too... Which non-rpm based distro could be base for this ? Becouse rpm-based distros are (except RH) are pure joke, a re-compilators. Debian if you want to start from scratch, Ubuntu could be if they finally stard developing source code instead of looking something to sell. Not Arch, not Void - not business mentality. Maybe Void as a base after revriting everything into musl, including things like Oracle ;) NixOs is in best technical possition but so far just sources (big) set and no comparable to RH development expertise... Actually no one have RH-like expertise as far as I know. So new business-level distro needs funding for 15 years or so ? "Back to the basics!" then :) Use stable, backcompatible, futureproof technologies ! C, C++, Perl (hehe he), git and maybe finally Lua, D and Julia ? In US Ruby probably too. Drop non-sense things like Gnome and moust of WWW insanity. Or just wait what new IBM will bring to rest of us... Like Winland with it's by-design over-complications and imposibilities to have stable env.

Conan_Kudo 3y ago
> Which non-rpm based distro could be base for this ? Becouse rpm-based distros are (except RH) are pure joke [...] > Actually no one have RH-like expertise as far as I know. So what is SUSE, chopped liver? They've been around for slightly longer and do a lot upstream too. Red Hat and SUSE have been around doing a lot, and it's a shame that so many people don't want to pay for actual commercial Linux expertise. :(
- Woodi 3y ago
  > So what is SUSE, chopped liver? I didn't mentioned SUSE because: - they are re-compilators. With long history and didn't sold in recent years, yes, but still small compared to RH. You can hear they do things, have customers not only from Germany so they have a lot of expertise but to my nose they are not realy self-sufficient without RH. They are more like small mechanic shop close to global factory - low throughput. Am I hand waving too much ? It's becouse SUSE pro&cons are not realy known. So moust likely they are small shop. Even if 2nd after RH. - they use rpm's so with a bit of pressure or becouse of management wanting to cover asses they or their customers will easilly roll back to IBM - SUSE do not look like wanting to be global. Not saying it is easy or even possible without controlling your own cpu's production... Also: - I asked for non-rpm distros - I personally am burned out with rpms since 90's - blame RH for not implementing Debian like net features years after Debian did it - git repo is better binary package. Source tarballs for LTS versions, done. IMO. And tar can be replaced by whatever in "tarbals"... > Red Hat and SUSE have been around doing a lot, and it's a shame that so many people don't want to pay for actual commercial Linux expertise. :( Agree. But easy to understood: a) MS is monopoly, Apple do not count as platform for development (multi-billion corporations don't count and even them do not develop on Apple - just modern "terminals" :) ) b) no serious RH alternative - as in: security and open source code development, including new features and apps

klysm 3y ago

How many examples do we need of companies trying to cash in like this before we stick to things like Debian?