8 ms·

CentOS Stream is also affiliated with Red Hat

by barneygale 3y ago

jzb 3y ago
If “affiliated with Red Hat” is a problem, why run something based on their code at all?
- chasil 3y ago
  My job currently demands Oracle Linux. I could choose Red Hat if I wanted to. As I don't like software audits and license key activation, I do not choose it, as these are not a concern with Oracle Linux (unlike some of their other products).
  - dralley 3y ago
    >As I don't like software audits and license key activation, I do not choose it, as these are not a concern with Oracle Linux (unlike some of their other products). Good news https://access.redhat.com/articles/simple-content-access https://access.redhat.com/articles/simple-content-access
    - cvadict 3y ago
      > Simply register and enable the repositories that you need. Counter offer: nah... how about I just target+deploy on any of the numerous competitors that don't make me jump through ANY licensing hoops whatsoever from here on out.
      - jamespo 3y ago
        go for it
  - jzb 3y ago
    “As I don't like software audits” You went with the distro cloned by the company that perfected the concept?
    - chasil 3y ago
      I actually didn't have a choice. In about 2007, we bought our first Red Hat to migrate functionality away from HP-UX. We eventually rolled the license that we purchased on a credit card into the corporate account. In about 2009, "yum update" stopped working, and I called Red Hat, where I learned that corporate had terminated the licensing. Investigating, they advised me to run the Oracle converter, and resume pulling patches. In 2013, corporate again switched to Red Hat. I did not. Corporate has been audited. I have not. I'm using some btrfs loopback mounts with the UEK, and sales calls with Red Hat expressed extreme distaste for this. At this point, why would I go back?
      - jzb 3y ago
        Thanks for sharing that. It's illuminating. w/r/t btrfs - I recall when it was deprecated from tech preview in RHEL. I know some users really, really wanted it and it keeps popping up - Fedora is now using it, but I am skeptical that it's going to make it into RHEL anytime soon given that it was in RHEL as a tech preview and then pulled. I know SUSE supports it, I have a NAS that uses it, but seems like it's been found to be wanting by some of the folks who decide what gets into RHEL and doesn't.
- justinclift 3y ago
  That's the relevant question. For anyone still running RHEL based Linux after the last time RH pulled dumb shit, now's probably the time to move elsewhere. ;)
  - jzb 3y ago
    Generally speaking, I think people have three choices: One is to pay for what you use and have a direct relationship where you have at least a little influence and stake with the company. Another is to go with community projects where possible. If they are healthy and well-run, you should be in pretty good shape over the long run that they won't act against your interests. Here I'd look to Debian which has a very strong focus on governance and doing the right thing. (As they define "right thing" and it is well spelled out.) Finally, do what's convenient and cheap with the realization that you will likely have to come up with a Plan B someday. This is sort of like the undertaker and Don Corleone: Someday, and that day may never come, you're going to have to pay a price and you don't know what that price is going to be.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Sounds pretty sensible. :)
nateb2022 3y ago
Are you aware of the scope of Red Hat's contributions? See here: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-program-office/contributions https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-program-office/c... Almost every major open-source project is actively contributed to by Red Hat, or has been at one point. Furthermore, Red Hat is the top commercial contributor to the Linux kernel, and contributes more to the Linux kernel than SUSE and Canonical combined.
- dralley 3y ago
  >Furthermore, Red Hat is the top commercial contributor to the Linux kernel This is a little tricky to define. By line count or commit count, it usually isn't, however the "top" contributors by those metrics are often hardware vendors committing large quantities of auto-generated hardware definitions in the form of header files, such as the AMDGPU driver. Red Hat also employs a lot of subsystem maintainers, who don't contribute much code themselves, but whose work is still important. So there's no perfect way to decide who is "top", exactly. I think top 3 would be fairly uncontroversial.
- cvadict 3y ago
  > Almost every major open-source project is actively contributed to by Red Hat, or has been at one point. That's nice... but Redhat's entire business is also built on the open source software contributed by tens of thousands of others, much of it licensed to them under copyleft terms like the GPL. Yes, RedHat absolutely did contribute immensely to that ecosystem, but once they (or corporate-daddy IBM) decided to take a big fat stinky dump in the collective sandbox and stopped sharing their toys, the rest of us are kinda allowed to be pissed at them, no? "We will give you the SRPM because we legally have to, but if you actually exercise any of the rights afforded to you by the GPL that software was licensed to us under we will immediately terminate you as a customer" *may* (a court will ultimately decide) fit into some legal loophole that exists in the void between contract vs. copyright law, but it certainly does violate the spirit of term#6 of the GPL, i.e. "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein". RedHat pulled what is commonly known as a "dick-move". Ef them and the horse they rode in on.
LeFantome 3y ago
That would be the appeal. I do not like RHEL anymore but, if I did, CentOS Strean would be a lot more comfortable and familiar than Debian. All the RHEL docs and certifications would be a lot more useful as well.

CentOS Stream is also affiliated with Red Hat

jzb 3y ago

If “affiliated with Red Hat” is a problem, why run something based on their code at all?

chasil 3y ago
My job currently demands Oracle Linux. I could choose Red Hat if I wanted to. As I don't like software audits and license key activation, I do not choose it, as these are not a concern with Oracle Linux (unlike some of their other products).
- dralley 3y ago
  >As I don't like software audits and license key activation, I do not choose it, as these are not a concern with Oracle Linux (unlike some of their other products). Good news https://access.redhat.com/articles/simple-content-access https://access.redhat.com/articles/simple-content-access
  - cvadict 3y ago
    > Simply register and enable the repositories that you need. Counter offer: nah... how about I just target+deploy on any of the numerous competitors that don't make me jump through ANY licensing hoops whatsoever from here on out.
    - jamespo 3y ago
      go for it
- jzb 3y ago
  “As I don't like software audits” You went with the distro cloned by the company that perfected the concept?
  - chasil 3y ago
    I actually didn't have a choice. In about 2007, we bought our first Red Hat to migrate functionality away from HP-UX. We eventually rolled the license that we purchased on a credit card into the corporate account. In about 2009, "yum update" stopped working, and I called Red Hat, where I learned that corporate had terminated the licensing. Investigating, they advised me to run the Oracle converter, and resume pulling patches. In 2013, corporate again switched to Red Hat. I did not. Corporate has been audited. I have not. I'm using some btrfs loopback mounts with the UEK, and sales calls with Red Hat expressed extreme distaste for this. At this point, why would I go back?
    - jzb 3y ago
      Thanks for sharing that. It's illuminating. w/r/t btrfs - I recall when it was deprecated from tech preview in RHEL. I know some users really, really wanted it and it keeps popping up - Fedora is now using it, but I am skeptical that it's going to make it into RHEL anytime soon given that it was in RHEL as a tech preview and then pulled. I know SUSE supports it, I have a NAS that uses it, but seems like it's been found to be wanting by some of the folks who decide what gets into RHEL and doesn't.
justinclift 3y ago
That's the relevant question. For anyone still running RHEL based Linux after the last time RH pulled dumb shit, now's probably the time to move elsewhere. ;)
- jzb 3y ago
  Generally speaking, I think people have three choices: One is to pay for what you use and have a direct relationship where you have at least a little influence and stake with the company. Another is to go with community projects where possible. If they are healthy and well-run, you should be in pretty good shape over the long run that they won't act against your interests. Here I'd look to Debian which has a very strong focus on governance and doing the right thing. (As they define "right thing" and it is well spelled out.) Finally, do what's convenient and cheap with the realization that you will likely have to come up with a Plan B someday. This is sort of like the undertaker and Don Corleone: Someday, and that day may never come, you're going to have to pay a price and you don't know what that price is going to be.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Sounds pretty sensible. :)

nateb2022 3y ago

Are you aware of the scope of Red Hat's contributions? See here: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-program-office/contributions https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-program-office/c... Almost every major open-source project is actively contributed to by Red Hat, or has been at one point. Furthermore, Red Hat is the top commercial contributor to the Linux kernel, and contributes more to the Linux kernel than SUSE and Canonical combined.

dralley 3y ago
>Furthermore, Red Hat is the top commercial contributor to the Linux kernel This is a little tricky to define. By line count or commit count, it usually isn't, however the "top" contributors by those metrics are often hardware vendors committing large quantities of auto-generated hardware definitions in the form of header files, such as the AMDGPU driver. Red Hat also employs a lot of subsystem maintainers, who don't contribute much code themselves, but whose work is still important. So there's no perfect way to decide who is "top", exactly. I think top 3 would be fairly uncontroversial.
cvadict 3y ago
> Almost every major open-source project is actively contributed to by Red Hat, or has been at one point. That's nice... but Redhat's entire business is also built on the open source software contributed by tens of thousands of others, much of it licensed to them under copyleft terms like the GPL. Yes, RedHat absolutely did contribute immensely to that ecosystem, but once they (or corporate-daddy IBM) decided to take a big fat stinky dump in the collective sandbox and stopped sharing their toys, the rest of us are kinda allowed to be pissed at them, no? "We will give you the SRPM because we legally have to, but if you actually exercise any of the rights afforded to you by the GPL that software was licensed to us under we will immediately terminate you as a customer" *may* (a court will ultimately decide) fit into some legal loophole that exists in the void between contract vs. copyright law, but it certainly does violate the spirit of term#6 of the GPL, i.e. "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein". RedHat pulled what is commonly known as a "dick-move". Ef them and the horse they rode in on.

LeFantome 3y ago

That would be the appeal. I do not like RHEL anymore but, if I did, CentOS Strean would be a lot more comfortable and familiar than Debian. All the RHEL docs and certifications would be a lot more useful as well.