jzb

43 ms·

511.
by jzb 3y ago
I really didn’t want to drill down into that. I don’t consider being a Nazi a “political opinion.” That’s outright denying other people right to exist, and shouldn’t be dignified as a legitimate political stance.
512.
by jzb 3y ago
My understanding is that Pop uses Flatpak sparingly, whereas Canonical is pushing Snaps for an increasing amount of software. That is, IIRC, you get (say) Firefox via Debs in Pop. Canonical wants to install it via Snap. IMO Flatpak is a gre
513.
by jzb 3y ago
Took me a minute. Well done.
514.
by jzb 3y ago
Yeah. Here I see Red Hat trying hard to live up to the letter and spirit of the GPL, but it's not getting appropriate credit on that one. In some ways I think of the GPL(s) like the Bill of Rights. Great document, great ideas behind it
515.
by jzb 3y ago
Red Hat may release spec files to conform to the requirement that source code includes "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." Note that this particular requirement got a fair amount of attention
516.
by jzb 3y ago
There's an in-between, here. The author was at a conference representing said company. Maybe they were told to go, but this isn't VMware policing their speech in general - this is someone attending an event on VMware's behalf
517.
by jzb 3y ago
There were two assertions in the original, I was not responding about the complexity piece. Sure, DoD requirements are no doubt fascinating and complex. What I was responding to was the assertion that "there is nothing political to s
518.
by jzb 3y ago
The sticking point here for me is that this person was attending an event on the company dime. They were literally being paid to make the company look good by attending. I’m still on the fence about this, I also think there’s probably conte
519.
by jzb 3y ago
I disagree. First, you dropped the word “weapons.” “DoD systems” sounds neutral, could be benign personnel systems. DoD weapons systems isn’t neutral, and it is political. Those systems are used to enforce U.S. policy, via combat. That’s th
520.
by jzb 3y ago
It equates to being paid to make the company look good. I wouldn’t take their comments or tweets as official policy, necessarily, but attracting negative attention by dragging on a speaker on the company dime isn’t a great look. Should it b
521.
by jzb 3y ago
If the company sends you to the event, it’s fair to say that you’re there “representing” them. If you’re there on your own dime, that may be different. I’m on the fence on this one. The tweets were in poor judgment. Especially tagging the s
522.
by jzb 3y ago
Mine is here: https://dissociatedpress.net/ About 80% tech topics, 15% culture and music, and about 5% my personal life and cat pictures. I'm thinking of splitting off my personal life topics to another blog. Some of m
523.
by jzb 3y ago
"There is no expectation for dedicated engineer time or solving their support cases" Sorry, but yes there is. The final product includes the outcome of all that. Especially the minor and z-stream releases are the culmination of
524.
by jzb 3y ago
The question is whether Red Hat's subscriber agreement constitutes a restriction on exercising their GPL'ed rights. You get source to RHEL 8.5. You rebuild it (carefully removing Red Hat marks/logos to avoid being snagged for
525.
by jzb 3y ago
AFAIK, Red Hat doesn't dabble in any retail redistribution of RHEL that would work as you suggest. You can, I think, get a self-support 1-year subscription online with a credit card for about $350. You can also sign up for no-cost subs
526.
by jzb 3y ago
I don't believe this is true. It's almost certainly not true for instances of distributing a limited set of sources. That is, I seriously doubt Red Hat or IBM are looking to cancel subscriptions if I download the latest package
527.
by jzb 3y ago
Short version: Red Hat ceased distributing RHEL sources directly to git.centos.org in a way that easily enabled Rocky, Alma and others to rebuild "bug-for-bug" compatible clones to RHEL releases. Also, folks are realizing that Red
528.
by jzb 3y ago
Heh. Saw the edit, but responding anyway. Canonical has its own issues. I can overlook some, others (like forcing Snap on users) have put me off a lot. Ubuntu did a lot to popularize Linux and make the Linux desktop experience more usable.
529.
by jzb 3y ago
I understand embarrassment, but anger might be misplaced. Red Hat was a newly public company trying to turn a profit. It identified its market and Red Hat Linux wasn't serving it, and the model they were pursuing with Red Hat Linux was
530.
by jzb 3y ago
CentOS Stream is at least as good as CentOS (probably better) was before Red Hat "acquired" it.[1] It's funny how rose-colored people's memories or suppositions about the past are. Basically - there's never been a b
531.
by jzb 3y ago
To be fair, nobody saw that one coming. Caldera was fine, they had done some fun stuff with the installer (Tetris!) and they had a exotically named CEO (Ransom Love), but they were fine. Their heel turn happened after a management change.
532.
by jzb 3y ago
SUSE has offered some level of support for RHEL/CentOS for a long time. They’ve had various programs over the years, long before this, to support customers who are on RHEL but might migrate to SLES. The specific SKUs and details change
533.
by jzb 3y ago
That’s a lot of words that in no way actually support what Red Hat is doing as a concerted attack on open source. Attempt at consolidating revenue? Ok. Attack on open source? No. The rest of the community and industry can route around Red H
534.
by jzb 3y ago
Hardly. Making RHEL harder to clone isn’t an attack on open source. It may be Red Hat is slightly less open, but calling it a concerted attack on open source is silly. RHEL isn’t a project. It’s a product. All the actual work is still happe
535.
by jzb 3y ago
"I wonder how well that play has been working for IBM." In January IBM reported that OpenShift is pulling in $1 billion in Annual Recurring Revenue [1]. OpenShift existed as a product before Kubernetes but was rebased on Kubernete
536.
by jzb 3y ago
Well, remember too that IBM didn't pay $34b for just RHEL - a big part of the purchase was OpenShift which has been coming up in revenue and has RHEL as its underpinning. And I have a lot more to write and say about that in a series fo
537.
by jzb 3y ago
"CentOS helped establish and maintain RHEL as the defacto standard" Not exactly. Maintain, perhaps, but Red Hat Linux was the standard before RHEL existed and everybody wanted a clone of Red Hat AS/RHEL to continue enjoying t
538.
by jzb 3y ago
It's also, as has been demonstrated, wildly impractical for Red Hat to continue exactly as before without others undermining its business. The thing is that everybody is only lobbying Red Hat to make concessions, but nobody's go
539.
by jzb 3y ago
Just the opposite, I think. Red Hat is fighting the idea that the operating system is a commodity, and demonstrating that the RHEL subscription does have value. Red Hat's competitors have tried really really hard to undermine RHEL as s
540.
by jzb 3y ago
Let me preface this by saying, Jeff owes Red Hat nothing and he's free to stop "supporting" RHEL for any or no reason at all. That said, "grab a copy of Linux" seriously, gloriously, hilariously handwaves away so ma

More ›