4 ms·

They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? I'm pretty sure if all paid Redhat developers stopped contributing it would be a massive blow to the Linux ecos

They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? I'm pretty sure if all paid Redhat developers stopped contributing it would be a massive blow to the Linux ecosystem that would not readily be replaced by volunteers. They employ people who work on every fundamental pillar of kernel space and userspace. Even if the fired devs wanted to continue contributing, it would probably be reduced hours compared to what they contributed before, because they will be simultaneously doing a different job in order to eat.

whatshisface 3y ago
We have been told that RH's business model is selling support for a complex and constantly improving platform which is given away for free. Redhat is supposed to represent having someone to call when you don't want to bring in a consultant or hire a Debian expert, not a "seat license for Linux." Part of the difficulty that RH is facing is in trying to undo the expectations set by years and years of marketing - we were all told their business model was really in support.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  So is it not true that > There is CentOS Stream the binary deliverable, and CentOS Stream the source repository. The CentOS Stream gitlab source is where we build RHEL releases, in the open for all to see. To call RHEL “closed source” is categorically untrue and inaccurate. Where I could just go get their OS myself?
  - wmf 3y ago
    The source is in there somewhere. Finding the exact source that corresponds to, say, RHEL 9.3 is intentionally difficult.
ilyt 3y ago
>They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? They managed to do that just fine pre IBM acquisition
- wmf 3y ago
  Commercial pure open source was a ZIRP phenomenon.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    No, it isn't. Selling support is actually profitable. Red Hat is an example of that, in 2018 they had a very healthy 13% profit margin, and they are still profitable to this day. Red Hat wasn't in debt either, it had net assets. I don't see how the end of ZIRP had a disproportionate negative impact on Red Hat's financial, they were and are doing just fine.
    - apple4ever 3y ago
      And they have said that support revenue is up 17% YOY for 2022! They are doing just fine with it, but they want MAOR.
bogwog 3y ago
All very logical sounding arguments, but remember that RedHat has been extremely successful for like 30 years with that open source model. These changes came after the acquisition by IBM, meaning that it's likely some clueless MBAs trying to make the line go up in the short term so they can get their promotion, rather than any kind of wise leadership decision. The only reason Rocky and Alma (the evil villains stealing RH's hard work) exist is because IBM killed CentOS, effectively pulling a bait-and-switch on a huge community. What makes this extra worrying is the important role RH plays in the linux ecosystem. When they get fully IBM'd, what will happen to Gnome, Systemd, Flatpak, etc?
- Yeroc 3y ago
  Yes, it's not about being able to pay the salaries of engineers. It's about being able to pay dividends to shareholders too!
apple4ever 3y ago
> They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? A better pricing model. Nobody is opposed to paying them. Most people used Cent because of the cost. Instead of trying to capture that value they intentionally refused to capture it.

whatshisface 3y ago

We have been told that RH's business model is selling support for a complex and constantly improving platform which is given away for free. Redhat is supposed to represent having someone to call when you don't want to bring in a consultant or hire a Debian expert, not a "seat license for Linux." Part of the difficulty that RH is facing is in trying to undo the expectations set by years and years of marketing - we were all told their business model was really in support.

jvanderbot 3y ago
So is it not true that > There is CentOS Stream the binary deliverable, and CentOS Stream the source repository. The CentOS Stream gitlab source is where we build RHEL releases, in the open for all to see. To call RHEL “closed source” is categorically untrue and inaccurate. Where I could just go get their OS myself?
- wmf 3y ago
  The source is in there somewhere. Finding the exact source that corresponds to, say, RHEL 9.3 is intentionally difficult.

ilyt 3y ago

>They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? They managed to do that just fine pre IBM acquisition

wmf 3y ago
Commercial pure open source was a ZIRP phenomenon.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  No, it isn't. Selling support is actually profitable. Red Hat is an example of that, in 2018 they had a very healthy 13% profit margin, and they are still profitable to this day. Red Hat wasn't in debt either, it had net assets. I don't see how the end of ZIRP had a disproportionate negative impact on Red Hat's financial, they were and are doing just fine.
  - apple4ever 3y ago
    And they have said that support revenue is up 17% YOY for 2022! They are doing just fine with it, but they want MAOR.

bogwog 3y ago

All very logical sounding arguments, but remember that RedHat has been extremely successful for like 30 years with that open source model. These changes came after the acquisition by IBM, meaning that it's likely some clueless MBAs trying to make the line go up in the short term so they can get their promotion, rather than any kind of wise leadership decision. The only reason Rocky and Alma (the evil villains stealing RH's hard work) exist is because IBM killed CentOS, effectively pulling a bait-and-switch on a huge community. What makes this extra worrying is the important role RH plays in the linux ecosystem. When they get fully IBM'd, what will happen to Gnome, Systemd, Flatpak, etc?

Yeroc 3y ago
Yes, it's not about being able to pay the salaries of engineers. It's about being able to pay dividends to shareholders too!

apple4ever 3y ago

> They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? A better pricing model. Nobody is opposed to paying them. Most people used Cent because of the cost. Instead of trying to capture that value they intentionally refused to capture it.