TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

How Red Hat’s Open-Source Negligence Is Doing Actual Harm to the Linux Community

37 点作者 twapi将近 2 年前

11 条评论

thedriver将近 2 年前
I&#x27;m actually with Red Hat on this one. There are many other great distributions that you can use, such as Debian. People are just angry that they can&#x27;t get an exact copy of a paid product and 10 years of support for free.<p>If there are non-profits and hobbyists who have been using one of the free derivatives, and this change causes problems for them, I feel sorry for them. But actual for profit companies could very well pay or use something else. If you want a similar system for free, you can use Fedora or CentOS Stream. And RHEL even gives you 16 free installations for non-commercial use. If you can&#x27;t pay for RHEL and that 16 installations isn&#x27;t enough, you most likely don&#x27;t actually need it. So many companies rely on free labor of others in the form of FOSS, and they seem to be angry about the idea that they would actually have to make a contribution.<p>RHEL also isn&#x27;t just stealing software others wrote, they are a big contributor to many of the projects that RHEL is built upon.<p>Besides, FSF&#x2F;GNU never said that you can&#x27;t charge money for FOSS or that the source code must be published for anyone in some git repository. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;selling.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;selling.html</a>
评论 #36583169 未加载
评论 #36583377 未加载
评论 #36583315 未加载
评论 #36583234 未加载
评论 #36586736 未加载
评论 #36583204 未加载
评论 #36583209 未加载
评论 #36583222 未加载
评论 #36583198 未加载
bimblesticks将近 2 年前
Wow, another blog post on the same two changes everyone else has been talking about for two weeks, rehashing the exact same arguments.<p>I genuinely cannot think of a company that contributes more to open-source projects than Red Hat. They to do this through hiring hundreds of talented engineers and adhering to an incredibly generous upstream-first policy, where most of the work they do gets made available for everyone else. No matter what Linux distribution you use, you are running a huge amount of code written by Red Hat.<p>Unfortunately, because we don’t live in a utopia, they need to be able to pay their engineers to do this work, and clones that simply redistribute their packages pose a serious threat to their ability to do this. Previously, Red Hat went out of their way to make the exact RHEL sources available to these clones. Now, Red Hat is still publishing all the code they write through Stream, but they do not have a specific repo for the exact RHEL patch set. I don’t see how this isn’t completely reasonable.<p>If you led a company making a product, and were responsible for thousands of employees, and some other company simply took that product and repackaged it, released it for free, while (in the case of Rocky and Oracle) running ads to compete with you in the process, are you telling me you would go out of your way to publish the exact patchsets to a special repository to make it as easy as possible for them to do this?
评论 #36583644 未加载
tm-guimaraes将近 2 年前
Redhat was actually really profitable, one of the reasons it was bought out.<p>Unlike most startups, and darlings like Uber, Dropbox, Airbnb, and the like, Redhat actually makes loads of money. So please try to count as many software companies are more profitable than Redhat.<p>Redhat saw “freeloaders” and wanted a piece of that pie. Terrible mistake.<p>Redhat says those distributions don’t really do much, they are not completely wrong, but they do one thing that helps redhat, they expand their market. Because of a lot more companies using “RHEL compatible” distros, lots of software, (specially in areas with more regulation, or very specialized domains, etc) simply target those, this makes Redhat a very good option even if you can get some build from elsewhere, or Amazon&#x2F;Oracle copies of those.<p>It also provides a safety net&#x2F;insurance for anyone picking a Redhat contract. Can’t go much wrong.<p>Anyway, the issue is simple, it’s lack of vision, not only from redhat leadership but from plenty of other companies in today’s world, they are more concerned with “capturing” their small pond, instead of having a very small part of the ocean.<p>Ocean is scary, too big to be controlled, even if your small part is much bigger than the pond, it requires actual expertise, and to benefit from such a huge thing you have to actually look for opportunities. And worse, you have to allow others to also make profits from that huge ocean.<p>Much easier to just close a pond and rent seek. Lazy
评论 #36583521 未加载
评论 #36583308 未加载
cyberax将近 2 年前
What a bunch of...<p>Look, don&#x27;t act like RHEL is the only distro in existence. There&#x27;s also Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Arch, and tons of other distros.<p>Even for boring old enterprise stuff there&#x27;s Ubuntu LTS.<p>Yeah, it sucks that RH doesn&#x27;t want to make life easy for rebuilders. But ultimately building your entire business model on copying the work of some other company verbatim is not a great idea.
评论 #36583140 未加载
评论 #36583452 未加载
评论 #36583672 未加载
评论 #36583269 未加载
nullcipher将近 2 年前
Want to hear alternate view points. Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code. They had done this in the past, for decades. They are trying something else now. Why hold them on the hook for this? Practically all companies use Linux and open source. Barely any contributes or keeps their source code open. For example, no hosting company I know has their code open. Practically no SaaS has code open (sure, you can give me 10 examples, but I can you 1 million examples in the contrary).
评论 #36583303 未加载
评论 #36583265 未加载
评论 #36583224 未加载
评论 #36583388 未加载
评论 #36583162 未加载
MichaelMoser123将近 2 年前
Just a reminder: Red Hat is owned by IBM, though they say that this is an independent subsidiary <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Red_Hat" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Red_Hat</a>
bastard_op将近 2 年前
Everyone seems to have forgotten IBM acquired Red Hat. What did anyone think IBM was going to do, other than fsck it up in bad ways?<p>You know damn well if you know anything of the industry that nothing good was going to come of IBM acquiring anything or anyone.
评论 #36590966 未加载
moomin将近 2 年前
There are companies out there so done with Red Hat now they’re wholesale moving to a radically different distribution.
评论 #36584269 未加载
hamilyon2将近 2 年前
So, two main questions that I still don&#x27;t understand completely.<p>OpenSUSE is rpm-based. Does that mean that it will diverge or lag behind more?<p>Technically, access to source code isn&#x27;t revoked, right? Someone could set up private git repository, extract and copy source files there, it is just pita, not impossible. So, the freeleecher business model is still very much possible, it is just you&#x27;ll have updates later, or am I missing something?
tannhaeuser将近 2 年前
RH&#x27;s interpretation of GPL licensing in today&#x27;s mature Linux market more than ever demonstrates lack of alignment of their incentives with their customer&#x27;s and can be summarized as: let&#x27;s introduce a thousand exclusive crap features on top of a POSIX core, then milk customers for support and ongoing maintenance. Yes RH pays most Linux devs (with SuSE a distant second, or at least it used to be like that), but their contributions are only monopolizing know-how, driving Linux further into the ground away from POSIX, and increase your dependency, a net negative. What&#x27;s the point of GPL without choice?<p>Consider that original Unix was developed in a couple of months and its point was to be compact, minimal, and portable. Linux today is a product of rent seeking in an environment of increased profit expectations, tolerated by its original developers (approaching retirement) as a well-paid hobby, that much is clear looking at its 30 years of development time. What are the goals of Linux as a development project? The Linux desktop is not only stagnating but severely regressing. It has become unusable for me after 12 years, with its focus on RH &quot;innovations&quot; such as gnome 3.x&#x2F;4.x, completely unnecessary containers, and wayland, while applications are lacking. A fscking joke compared to Mac OS. The server-side? A cloud OS benefitting only FAANG where RH also uses its muscle to drive Docker out of business who dared to provide alternatives (not that I&#x27;m a big fan of solutions to self-inflicted problems anyway). Android Linux? The largest known spyware vector in the world. It&#x27;s time for Linux developers to take a deep look into the mirror.<p>On the plus side, RH&#x27;s and Linux&#x27; demise means opportunities for the BSDs, for other Linux vendors such as SuSE, or entire new operating systems.
izacus将近 2 年前
Interesting posts after said community actively took Red Hats work and resold it for their own pure profit with no investment. Making Red Hats business model untenable.<p>It seems like OSS Community loves to attack and eat their own - RH is one of the top Linux contributors across the board, while the profiteers did practically nothing for the community.<p>The rabid the attacks of freeloaders are quite intersting to see here on this site.
评论 #36583574 未加载