5 ms·

Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros? I'm sure t

Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros? I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server. And if I believed RH was being intentionally hostile, why would I support them at all and not go with a completely unrelated distro like SUSE?

josephcsible 3y ago
> If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. You can't get RHEL for free.
- eraser215 3y ago
  Yes you can. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-enterprise-linux-programs-easier-ways-access-rhel https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-enterpri...
  - anyoneamous 3y ago
    This falls under the heading of "technically correct" - in the sense that the limit is high enough for people to make the argument you are, and yet too low for most enterprise use-cases. Worse, the offer could be withdrawn at any time.
    - Espionage724 3y ago
      If you're enterprise with more than 16 machines, you can and should probably be paying for RHEL. What I'm not understanding is why people need to use RHEL and would resort to free random forks of it, instead of just using CentOS Stream or Fedora that are basically the same thing, actually from RH, and 100% free. RHEL is not that special.
      - anyoneamous 3y ago
        > can and should probably be paying for RHEL. I'm on the fence about that. I wish people were more willing to financially support open-source development, but I've worked with dozens of customers using RHEL over the last 10 years and never seen a single one of them open a support request - on that basis I can see why people feel that the price is too high. When the options are "get gouged" or "be labelled a freeloader", the outcome is pretty obvious. > just using CentOS Stream or Fedora I think the rise of free alternatives (Amazon Linux) and a DevOps-style mindset (no patching, just burn it down and redeploy when updates are needed) are exactly what has motivated this squeeze - RHEL is losing relevance in a lot of places, so RH/IBM are left with fewer potential customers and so just end up squeezing them harder.
        kiratp 3y ago
        “No support requests” was non-trivially due to RH’s efforts. Did those people thing that stable OSes just build themselves?
        anyoneamous 3y ago
        Sure, and that's enough motivation for people to be convinced to pay something - I just think the current price is too high.
        bonzini 3y ago
        You don't pay for the support requests, you pay for the work of letting you update to the next minor release at your own pace, having those updates be rock solid, and having security fixes even on older releases. In other words you pay for not having to open support requests.
        anyoneamous 3y ago
        When a free alternative (CentOS, Rocky) exists, you can get those benefits without the cost. The only real differentiator RH has is support. Being an open source company means that RH has a non-standard business model and should expect non-standard profits. Their business model is inevitably doomed, but rather than innovating they are going with the "lock-in and gouge" model, exactly like Oracle.
- Espionage724 3y ago
  Are you sure? Things I read online say it's free, including https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download As I understand, the only costs with RHEL include using it across a large number of machines in enterprise, and customer support. Someone using it on a few machines in a home lab should be fine I imagine?
  - hrrsn 3y ago
    You can sign up for the developer license and install it on up to 16 machines, after that you need to pay
    - Espionage724 3y ago
      Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are this controversial :p 16 machines is more devices than I have in my house, and enterprise seems like they can just pay for RHEL. I'm also betting there's not some thorough verification process that would prevent you from running RHEL free on more than 16 machines (seems almost too easy, but just make multiple free accounts per-16 machines? RH I'm sure would be happier to have people running RHEL at all than intentionally seeking out free license violators)
      - kobalsky 3y ago
        > Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are this controversial :p 16 licenses is the proverbial tip. we know what happens next.
      - doubled112 3y ago
        16 devices doesn’t cover everything I have at home, and managing the license(s) isn’t something I’m looking to do.
        Espionage724 3y ago
        So you'd rather use some random fork of RHEL?
marcosdumay 3y ago
Because soon that will be the fork everybody will target,and the de facto standard. RHEL could have survived for a while in hostile mode if everybody was complacent (maybe making the entire thing profitable). But this is exactly people not being complacent. Anyway, you can bet there will be infighting once this is established. But well, the power that free software grants for people to misbehave is very limited.
- bonzini 3y ago
  It's a fork that by definition is an exact reproduction of the thing they fork. So it cannot become a new, different standard.
- Espionage724 3y ago
  Who is everyone? I imagine any serious business is paying for RHEL instead of an unheard of fork, and in my use if I wanted to change from Fedora Server I'd go to CentOS Stream, followed by RH with a free dev license. I'm getting the vive that some people just want free RHEL, feel entitled to have it, and don't realize that actual RHEL is free within reason (apparently up to 16 simultaneous machines). Nobody remotely concerned about security is running a non-mainstream distro and public-facing services in an age of randomware and crypto.
lproven 3y ago
> provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros Only SUSE has its own distro, or rather, whole family of them: SLE, openSUSE Leap, and openSUSE Tumbleweed. The others are rebuilds of CentOS Linux source.

josephcsible 3y ago

> If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. You can't get RHEL for free.

eraser215 3y ago
Yes you can. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-enterprise-linux-programs-easier-ways-access-rhel https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-enterpri...
- anyoneamous 3y ago
  This falls under the heading of "technically correct" - in the sense that the limit is high enough for people to make the argument you are, and yet too low for most enterprise use-cases. Worse, the offer could be withdrawn at any time.
  - Espionage724 3y ago
    If you're enterprise with more than 16 machines, you can and should probably be paying for RHEL. What I'm not understanding is why people need to use RHEL and would resort to free random forks of it, instead of just using CentOS Stream or Fedora that are basically the same thing, actually from RH, and 100% free. RHEL is not that special.
    - anyoneamous 3y ago
      > can and should probably be paying for RHEL. I'm on the fence about that. I wish people were more willing to financially support open-source development, but I've worked with dozens of customers using RHEL over the last 10 years and never seen a single one of them open a support request - on that basis I can see why people feel that the price is too high. When the options are "get gouged" or "be labelled a freeloader", the outcome is pretty obvious. > just using CentOS Stream or Fedora I think the rise of free alternatives (Amazon Linux) and a DevOps-style mindset (no patching, just burn it down and redeploy when updates are needed) are exactly what has motivated this squeeze - RHEL is losing relevance in a lot of places, so RH/IBM are left with fewer potential customers and so just end up squeezing them harder.
      - kiratp 3y ago
        “No support requests” was non-trivially due to RH’s efforts. Did those people thing that stable OSes just build themselves?
        anyoneamous 3y ago
        Sure, and that's enough motivation for people to be convinced to pay something - I just think the current price is too high.
      - bonzini 3y ago
        You don't pay for the support requests, you pay for the work of letting you update to the next minor release at your own pace, having those updates be rock solid, and having security fixes even on older releases. In other words you pay for not having to open support requests.
        anyoneamous 3y ago
        When a free alternative (CentOS, Rocky) exists, you can get those benefits without the cost. The only real differentiator RH has is support. Being an open source company means that RH has a non-standard business model and should expect non-standard profits. Their business model is inevitably doomed, but rather than innovating they are going with the "lock-in and gouge" model, exactly like Oracle.
Espionage724 3y ago
Are you sure? Things I read online say it's free, including https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download As I understand, the only costs with RHEL include using it across a large number of machines in enterprise, and customer support. Someone using it on a few machines in a home lab should be fine I imagine?
- hrrsn 3y ago
  You can sign up for the developer license and install it on up to 16 machines, after that you need to pay
  - Espionage724 3y ago
    Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are this controversial :p 16 machines is more devices than I have in my house, and enterprise seems like they can just pay for RHEL. I'm also betting there's not some thorough verification process that would prevent you from running RHEL free on more than 16 machines (seems almost too easy, but just make multiple free accounts per-16 machines? RH I'm sure would be happier to have people running RHEL at all than intentionally seeking out free license violators)
    - kobalsky 3y ago
      > Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are this controversial :p 16 licenses is the proverbial tip. we know what happens next.
    - doubled112 3y ago
      16 devices doesn’t cover everything I have at home, and managing the license(s) isn’t something I’m looking to do.
      - Espionage724 3y ago
        So you'd rather use some random fork of RHEL?

marcosdumay 3y ago

Because soon that will be the fork everybody will target,and the de facto standard. RHEL could have survived for a while in hostile mode if everybody was complacent (maybe making the entire thing profitable). But this is exactly people not being complacent. Anyway, you can bet there will be infighting once this is established. But well, the power that free software grants for people to misbehave is very limited.

bonzini 3y ago
It's a fork that by definition is an exact reproduction of the thing they fork. So it cannot become a new, different standard.
Espionage724 3y ago
Who is everyone? I imagine any serious business is paying for RHEL instead of an unheard of fork, and in my use if I wanted to change from Fedora Server I'd go to CentOS Stream, followed by RH with a free dev license. I'm getting the vive that some people just want free RHEL, feel entitled to have it, and don't realize that actual RHEL is free within reason (apparently up to 16 simultaneous machines). Nobody remotely concerned about security is running a non-mainstream distro and public-facing services in an age of randomware and crypto.

lproven 3y ago

> provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros Only SUSE has its own distro, or rather, whole family of them: SLE, openSUSE Leap, and openSUSE Tumbleweed. The others are rebuilds of CentOS Linux source.