4 ms·

Could be. It very well could be that the whole RH model dies with the success of clones. I was more-or-less just spitballing. But what are they to do? I guess d

Could be. It very well could be that the whole RH model dies with the success of clones. I was more-or-less just spitballing. But what are they to do? I guess double down? And try to increase their value add but then if it comes from software quality or their QA/validation that goes into making RHEL the clones will get it for free too

em-bee 3y ago
i don't think the clones themselves are the problem, but the commercial support available for clones is taking away business from red hat, and that is where the conflict lies. in a way it is actually a similar problem with amazon and the like offering commercial support for databases. that is an inherent problem in the FOSS model. on one hand it is great that anyone can offer support for any FOSS software, but when big companies offer that support without giving back to the projects themselves they are undermining the sustainability of the projects. but i don't have a clue how to solve that, other than everyone just being more considerate and not take advantage of the developers.
- gigatexal 3y ago
  Same i've no clue how to solve FOSS funding > "i don't think the clones themselves are the problem, but the commercial support available for clones is taking away business from red hat, and that is where the conflict lies." exactly what i mean when I say 0-value-added-clones because they then turn around and sell support on the clones which seems seemingly unethical to me somehow -- though i am still working through that thought process. I would not want to be RedHat here actually. It's a tough situation.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    0-value-added-clones most of the clones themselves are not selling support, at least not at the scale that would be a problem for redhat. clones do add value because they allow small companies to use a version of RHEL without having to pay for license/support they can't afford. when these companies grow they then can become red hat customers. at least that was my understanding of the goals behind centos and also why redhat took it on and made it part of their products. the problem is not all third-party support, but only companies that compete for large corporate contracts like oracle. when a company hires me to install centos or some other clone for them, and then calls me when there are issues with their servers, then technically i am selling support on clones. but i very much doubt that in that case i am taking away business from redhat. heck, most likely i would have been the one who recommended centos to them, when i could have recommended debian as well. these companies come to me because they trust me, not because i am selling them a big brand on the cheap.
    - gigatexal 3y ago
      I can see that as a valuable pre-sale sort of approach... hmm I think my hard-and-fast stance is changing.

em-bee 3y ago

i don't think the clones themselves are the problem, but the commercial support available for clones is taking away business from red hat, and that is where the conflict lies. in a way it is actually a similar problem with amazon and the like offering commercial support for databases. that is an inherent problem in the FOSS model. on one hand it is great that anyone can offer support for any FOSS software, but when big companies offer that support without giving back to the projects themselves they are undermining the sustainability of the projects. but i don't have a clue how to solve that, other than everyone just being more considerate and not take advantage of the developers.

gigatexal 3y ago
Same i've no clue how to solve FOSS funding > "i don't think the clones themselves are the problem, but the commercial support available for clones is taking away business from red hat, and that is where the conflict lies." exactly what i mean when I say 0-value-added-clones because they then turn around and sell support on the clones which seems seemingly unethical to me somehow -- though i am still working through that thought process. I would not want to be RedHat here actually. It's a tough situation.
- em-bee 3y ago
  0-value-added-clones most of the clones themselves are not selling support, at least not at the scale that would be a problem for redhat. clones do add value because they allow small companies to use a version of RHEL without having to pay for license/support they can't afford. when these companies grow they then can become red hat customers. at least that was my understanding of the goals behind centos and also why redhat took it on and made it part of their products. the problem is not all third-party support, but only companies that compete for large corporate contracts like oracle. when a company hires me to install centos or some other clone for them, and then calls me when there are issues with their servers, then technically i am selling support on clones. but i very much doubt that in that case i am taking away business from redhat. heck, most likely i would have been the one who recommended centos to them, when i could have recommended debian as well. these companies come to me because they trust me, not because i am selling them a big brand on the cheap.
  - gigatexal 3y ago
    I can see that as a valuable pre-sale sort of approach... hmm I think my hard-and-fast stance is changing.