5 ms·

I suppose this is both good and bad. I wonder if Red Hat/IBM anticipated this, and how they will respond to it.

colechristensen 3y ago
Eh, it's good. IBM didn't want to continue supporting community things and so here we are, the RedHat business model was a bit tricky and increasingly so because of cloud computing. The great value of RedHat was supported software. You could buy one of those $10,000 per seat software packages for some engineering discipline that was guaranteed to work by RedHat and the vendor and if it wasn't they were quite motivated and helpful in fixing your problem quickly. RedHat also was trusted to monitor and fix security problems quickly, and was in the privileged position of getting notifications about them before they were public so they could be fixed. The question is how do you get people to fund these two things?
- eraser215 3y ago
  It's been made abundantly clear by many people in many places that this isn't an IBM thing.
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    It is not clear what you mean.
  - CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
    Links pls?
  - geerlingguy 3y ago
    There have been numerous employees, former employees, and even VP level folks who have said this direction comes from Red Hat, and not IBM. I'm inclined to believe them, with the caveat that this reality may not have come to be had IBM never bought Red Hat. That still doesn't imply IBM forced the change. It's public record that Paul Cormier has considered the way CentOS worked a problem for years... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRol3YAV-E&t=360s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRol3YAV-E&t=360s
lbhdc 3y ago
I am curious how they feel as well. It seems like it won't impact their support contracts since things built with openela will be rhel compatible. But surely they cut people off for moat reasons. Why do you think this is a bad change? I was thinking additional players in the space would make for a more robust ecosystem.
BossingAround 3y ago
Why would they respond? This just confirms their position as the leader in the Linux space, doesn't it?
- CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
  Leader? Citation needed. For example, LWN's most-recent report[0] on who contributed Linux kernel patches puts either three or four different companies above Red Hat, depending on if you're looking at changesets or lines changed. Regardless, if leadership is theirs to lose, then they're doing a good job of it. [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/936113/ https://lwn.net/Articles/936113/
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    Apple vs Android. Profits vs numbers
  - jzb 3y ago
    They’re the latter as far as paid Linux goes. Kernel contributions are only one metric / piece of a distro, and these days a lot of the code churn is hardware if I’m not mistaken. It makes sense that Red Hat has slipped because the big changes are in new support for hardware.
    - jzb 3y ago
      I should know better than reply on my phone. Leader not latter.

Eh, it's good. IBM didn't want to continue supporting community things and so here we are, the RedHat business model was a bit tricky and increasingly so because of cloud computing. The great value of RedHat was supported software. You could buy one of those $10,000 per seat software packages for some engineering discipline that was guaranteed to work by RedHat and the vendor and if it wasn't they were quite motivated and helpful in fixing your problem quickly. RedHat also was trusted to monitor and fix security problems quickly, and was in the privileged position of getting notifications about them before they were public so they could be fixed. The question is how do you get people to fund these two things?

eraser215 3y ago
It's been made abundantly clear by many people in many places that this isn't an IBM thing.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  It is not clear what you mean.
- CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
  Links pls?
- geerlingguy 3y ago
  There have been numerous employees, former employees, and even VP level folks who have said this direction comes from Red Hat, and not IBM. I'm inclined to believe them, with the caveat that this reality may not have come to be had IBM never bought Red Hat. That still doesn't imply IBM forced the change. It's public record that Paul Cormier has considered the way CentOS worked a problem for years... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRol3YAV-E&t=360s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRol3YAV-E&t=360s

lbhdc 3y ago

I am curious how they feel as well. It seems like it won't impact their support contracts since things built with openela will be rhel compatible. But surely they cut people off for moat reasons. Why do you think this is a bad change? I was thinking additional players in the space would make for a more robust ecosystem.

BossingAround 3y ago

Why would they respond? This just confirms their position as the leader in the Linux space, doesn't it?

CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
Leader? Citation needed. For example, LWN's most-recent report[0] on who contributed Linux kernel patches puts either three or four different companies above Red Hat, depending on if you're looking at changesets or lines changed. Regardless, if leadership is theirs to lose, then they're doing a good job of it. [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/936113/ https://lwn.net/Articles/936113/
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  Apple vs Android. Profits vs numbers
- jzb 3y ago
  They’re the latter as far as paid Linux goes. Kernel contributions are only one metric / piece of a distro, and these days a lot of the code churn is hardware if I’m not mistaken. It makes sense that Red Hat has slipped because the big changes are in new support for hardware.
  - jzb 3y ago
    I should know better than reply on my phone. Leader not latter.