What do you think about the move of RHEL ?
Who cares. There is always some drama in the Linux world.What do you think about the move of RHEL ?
Makes me glad for choosing FreeBSD. No GPL - no drama.
Alma and Rocky are impacted. Fedora is the development branch of RH, it's not impacted. This move by the parent company(IBM) makes complete sense. IBM bought RH to make money, they have no incentive to give away their source code for free. It's ironic and sad that IBM was the champion of Linux years ago and now they've moved to a closed source model like Microsoft.fedora , alma-linux, rocky-linux are possibly impacted.
While Microsoft now has a lot of open source projects, who could expect that some 20 years ago.closed source model like Microsoft
Indeed! I remember when Ballmer characterized Linux as a cancer. IBM bought their operating system(DOS) from Bill Gates back in the day, they needed something to run their PCs. And they've purchased RH. They're a successful business aimed at being profitable.While Microsoft now has a lot of open source projects, who could expect that some 20 years ago.
Exactly. Development works best in BSD and Linux when code is freely shared. It's sad that Red Hat has chosen profit over open source ideology(I get it though). This form of thinking will spread (Suse is going to have their own enterprise version of Linux).If everyone kept their little bits of work private, the entire open-source platform would not exist as it does today. Quite disappointed in Red Hat.
For non-Linux what matters are upstream contributions, not the sauce used by RHEL to give "certified" flavor. This drama (unlike systemd and intensified by GPL) destabilizes vendor lock in Linux, making it easier to adopt FreeBSD.They completely overlook the fact that 99% of Red Hat's "work" is the work of small individual developers.
Yup, the marketing sector of the FBSDF (and all others BSD's foundations) should take serious advantage of this situation and bite a big chunk of the market share from RHEL.making it easier to adopt FreeBSD
But also particularly disappointed in all the Linux newbies avidly defending Red Hat as "protecting" its work. They completely overlook the fact that 99% of Red Hat's "work" is the work of small individual developers.
The "marketing sector of FBSDF"? Does such a thing even exist? Is FreeBSD marketed to potential users? Just as a reminder: The last published revenue of RedHat (before it was bought by IBM) was about four billion $ per year. The total budget of the FreeBSD foundation is a few million $. The market share of Linux in both desktop and servers is probably 100x or 1000x larger than FreeBSD.Yup, the marketing sector of the FBSDF (and all others BSD's foundations) should take serious advantage of this situation and bite a big chunk of the market share from RHEL.
I'm not sure. For the kernel, perhaps (looking at commits, around 75% commercial) but looking at the entire Gnome desktop "cruft" (and vim and coreutils, etc), much of that is very much amateur /hobbyist and that makes up a lot of the distribution.The idea that Linux is developed by individual amateurs (who don't get paid for their work on Linux) was probably true 25 years ago, and hasn't been true since.
For the package scripts, many of these come from Fedora (licensed under MIT) and many are written by amateurs / hobbyists. RH then integrated them with their downstream.In addition to using all that, RedHat (or any distribution) also puts in a lot of work into assembling software, packaging it, and testing the result for commercial sale. That work is not open source, and it is exactly what RedHat is trying to protect here.
Yup, just look at the FBSDF website and the Linkedin profile.The "marketing sector of FBSDF"? Does such a thing even exist? Is FreeBSD marketed to potential users?