They were bought by IBM a few years back, but even aside from that they’re a corporation and they care about making money above all else.

It looks like Red Hat is doing its damnedest to consolidate as much power for themselves within the Linux ecosystem.

I don’t think the incessant Fedora shilling is unrelated.

It seems like there isn’t much criticism of the company or their tactics, and I’m curious if any of you think that should change.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        TIL; though I moved my servers to Debian … having the ability to sanely upgrade without a reinstall is a major plus.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          I’m pretty sure Alma had a way to upgrade major releases. I know RHEL has Leapp, but it is always recommended to do a greenfield reinstall. Although with image mode and ostree that is changing.

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Interesting … yeah it looks like Leapp can do some upgrades for Alma and possibly others as well (TIL). I’m not sure how well that upgrade process would compare / be supported vs Debian though.

            What’s the image mode and ostree stuff? Is that required for RHEL and/or Alma going forward?

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Fuck Rocky. They are a leech on open source. They break user agreements to get at Red Hat source and don’t contribute upstream. Use Alma, they actually work with the community and contribute upstream.

        • LeFantome@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The GPL says you can get the source to software that people distribute to you. Red Hat does not distribute to Rocky.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Because CIQ, the company that bankrolls Rocky, was poaching Red Hat customers. They were hiring Red Hat sales people, then using their contacts to swoop in and drastically undercut Red Hat because they don’t do any engineering. It is an effort to stop leeches like CIQ/Rocky.

          • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            They were hiring Red Hat sales people, then using their contacts to swoop in and drastically undercut Red Hat because they don’t do any engineering.

            There’s an easy solution to that. RedHat could just pay their salespeople what they are worth and keep them at RedHat.

          • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I don’t see the problem with that. Red Hat is bankrolled by IBM. I don’t have any qualms about them facing competition, even underhanded competition which I don’t think this is. Contributing to open source doesn’t and shouldn’t guarantee financial compensation, customers, whatever.

            • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              So, you’re okay with one company taking another company’s work, contributing nothing to it themselves, then hiring company A’s employees, and finally taking company A’s customers? Not even Oracle was slimy enough to do that.

              IBM does not bank roll Red Hat. Red Hat acts and reports independently of IBM.

              • nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                @FlexibleToast @zero_spelled_with_an_ecks If that company built upon open source and had then to release their work because of the original license, then I can’t speak for others, but I’m ok with it. They can do original work or they can build on others, if they do the latter then they have to expect the same.

                • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Right, I think you’re basically saying what I think most of us would agree with. Don’t just copy the homework and poach customers. You can copy the homework and add your own value to it and earn customers. Bonus points for adding that value add back into the community like Alma does with their HPC work.

                • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  Buddy, I know IBM owns them. I also know that Red Hat is basically the only thing making IBM money. Look at the financials a little more closely.

                  I guess you consider the parts of open source that are contributed to be owned by the contributors?

                  What would that have to do with anything? That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m against companies that take an open source project to profit off of it without making any contributions to the community. CIQ and Canonical to a lesser extent. I have no issues with people like Red Hat, SUSE, Alma, etc…

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        What does that even mean? Alma already contributes and is down stream of CentOS Stream. Rocky doesn’t contribute and steals Red Hat source.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Rock Linux isn’t “stealing” anything. They make a exact RHEL clone for those who want absolute RHEL clone. Almalinux on the other hand is just trying to be comparable with RHEL software and tools. It is very similar to RHEL but they do things like fix issues faster. Some people are weary of Almalinux because it is tied to cloudlinux.

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            14 hours ago

            No, it is “stealing.” Even worse is that they don’t contribute back to the community. They’re breaking the terms and agreement in order to get the source. Alma is based on CentOS Stream and is ABI compatible with RHEL.

                • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  I agree, but they’ve also made deliberate moves to muddy the waters of open source and push the limits of what is acceptable under GPL, and I’m not going to shed any tears over their loss of potential corporate profit.