4 ms·
> Also ignore the fact that Red Hat builds their product on top of Linux, which they didn't build and don't own. I feel like this ignores the fact that Linux'
by ynx 3y ago
> Also ignore the fact that Red Hat builds their product on top of Linux, which they didn't build and don't own.
I feel like this ignores the fact that Linux's continued success is, in large part, a direct consequence of its ability to compete for government contracts by way of Red Hat pursuing compliance and funding development to that effect, in addition to a massive amount of Linux development that Red Hat does directly fund.
Like, yeah - they're not the only reason Linux is successful, but RHEL's success definitely played a big part in making it suitable for the datacenter.
- olddustytrail 3y agoNo, not really. Ubuntu and Debian are far more prevalent in the datacentre than Redhat. Linux became popular through grass roots deployments and then companies cashed in on that. There seems to be a new narrative that it was the companies that started the ball rolling but it's not so.
- asadotzler 3y agoThe companies absolutely got the ball rolling. Sure, the grass roots started the ball rolling, but that roll was not going to get Linux anywhere without the kinds of investment that Redhat and others brought in the second half of the 90s.
- phendrenad2 3y agoDepends on what you mean by "anywhere". If your only goal in life is to see Linux take over the datacenter, well you should be happy. But if Linux ok the desktop is more of your goal, then I think that the corporations have actually been a detriment because they prioritize changes that help the server ecosystem, even if it makes the desktop shittier.
- ynx 3y agoRed Hat did way more than "cash in" considering how many open source projects it has created or funded directly or even indirectly by employing a very large number of their maintainers.