3 ms·
> not just directly rip off the whole distro. I literally love this take, because it can't be more wrong. Most of the CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux users used
by bayindirh 3y ago
> not just directly rip off the whole distro.
I literally love this take, because it can't be more wrong.
Most of the CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux users used these distributions, because they were able to find their way and fix their problems without asking RedHat's help, and RedHat was explicitly saying that they're selling the "support", not the distribution.
Most of the people managed these systems had the chops to rebuild everything from bottom up, if required, and report the bugs the correct places to support everyone, including Red Hat.
Red Hat changed its stance overnight and decided to sell the distribution instead of support, closed the SRPMS they provided, flipped the table and screamed "Thieves!".
It's funny and sad at the same time. They started this model, lived in a win-win relationship for two decades, and changed their minds overnight like a drunk sailor, because IBM wanted more monies.
This will be very harmful to everyone involved in this in the medium-long term, because RHEL will lose the mind share which supported them on the enterprise space.
IBM's software products may be locked to RHEL in the short term, and a RHEL license have to be bundled with their sales, but it'll be a niche, dark room distro, not a well known one.
We'll see how Fedora will fare from IBM "Community"'s bright ideas like "opt-out before the first send" telemetry.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- OCASMv2 3y agoAlma and Rocky directly competing with RHEL, undercutting RH's business by rebranding RHEL clones to sell cheaper support (since they don't suffer RHEL development costs) is what changed. Why should RH help bad faith competitors?
- planetafro 3y agoBeing a corp slog nearly my entire life, it's good to stay open to all opinions. With that I say, that I have encountered piles of fraud with organizations in my career. They would buy a couple licenses of RHEL when their fleet was really CentOS and they would just lie on support calls. I think this is what Red Hat was getting at with all the "freeloader" nonsense. Tone deaf, yes. Wrong, not totally. ...continuing to be fair, Red Hat support has literally been the best I have ever used in my career. Hands down. I know I sound like a shill but I'm not. Just a reg ol' engineer. I've since moved on, like most, to cloud and past RHEL but it has it's uses. Cattle not pets for cloud!
- mroche 3y agoRegarding the "freeloaders" comment, Mike McGrath made a follow-up post on LinkedIn that includes the following: > Finally, I wanted to say something about the term "freeloaders" I've seen many use it. This is a mostly internal term we have at Red Hat, it looks like at some point it slipped out in the public. So what does it mean? A freeloader is when a large enterprise business has 20 RHEL licenses, 150,000 community rebuild systems, and sometimes hundreds of user accounts and hundreds of kbase searches per month. It's not the enthusiasts, it's not the hackers and coders, it's not the academics, and it's not the people that use rebuilders because they can't afford it. We really try not to use the term, but when we do, it's about the large companies that can afford to pay but don't.