3 ms·
Not the opposite. You're agreeing with the parent that Red Hat is viewing to de-commodify Linux. You just can't seem to see why this a bad thing. Red Hat d
by parasubvert 3y ago
Not the opposite. You're agreeing with the parent that Red Hat is viewing to de-commodify Linux. You just can't seem to see why this a bad thing.
Red Hat does not have the interests of the community in mind any longer, which was inevitable when IBM purchased them.
- bonzini 3y agoThe parent comment is a bit confusing in that it says de-commoditizing Linux, which is one thing, but then talks about de-commoditizing RHEL. Yes, Red Hat wants to show that Linux can be treated as a commodity except when it can't; that the work on a distro can be separated into parts that can be shared with the community and parts that people are willing to pay for; that rebuilders are reducing the value of the latter and the only game-theoretical outcome is that no one will have the money to do this work. Without going into the discussion of whether that's correct or not, it's not a particularly new stance. It was the whole point of separating Fedora and RHEL in 2004.