Operating Systems

3801 readers

1 users here now

All things operating system related, from Windows to Mac to Linux distros and the more obscure.

Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

remington

alyaza

1993_toyota_camry

Following the usual playbook, IBM's Red Hat begins locking down access to it's "open source" (www.jeffgeerling.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Penguincoder to c/operating_systems

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Red Hat announced yesterday that the sources for RHEL will no longer be accessible from git.centos.org. This effectively locks their source changes behind a subscription to RHEL, that costs money.

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SemioticStandard 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is it lately with companies and shooting themselves in the foot? Have all the CEOs gotten together and mutually decided that this was the year they were going to piss off their communities?

Red Hat are burning through a lot of the good will they’ve made over the years with this.

Here’s the statement the Rocky Linux folks put out:

https://rockylinux.org/news/2023-06-22-press-release/

Good luck, brothers. I wish you well.

[–] strcrssd@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're (US) is in a growth cycle. This is a common thing -- the companies need to try to keep up with growth/markets, so squeeze people for more money. Reddit is doing it -- trying to IPO. Red Hat is doing it with this, though for me they've never been compelling or useful -- I'm shocked they've hung on this long. Their products in my (very limited) experience are mediocre.

[–] psudo 8 points 1 year ago

You aren't Red Hat's target customer. Their target is a large corporation that not only wants to pay for official support, but often needs to thanks to regulations or the like.

[–] Hirom 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Opensource licenses typically doesn't require the software to be free, just that the source and modification be made available to users.

Making user pay to access both binaries and source is fair, as long as RedHat keep contributing code to upstream projects.

[–] EvilColeslaw 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The more questionable issue though is their suggestion that they will cancel support agreements and dev accounts that redistribute their code. That seems like it's skirting very close to violation of the letter of the GPL. It shits all over the spirit of it.

[–] Hirom 1 points 1 year ago

Good point, the right to redistribute is one of the basis of opensource.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba 9 points 1 year ago

A while ago someone shared this on !programming@beehaw.org, and it feels relevant to bring it up again.

[–] knowncarbage@lemmy.fmhy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

On the plus side it's not as if Red Hat are in charge of the all of the core system plumbing for all the major distros.....oh, shit wait a minute.

[–] hopolapopola 6 points 1 year ago

well that's a bit of a dick move

[–] AnActualFossil@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Guess I'll stick with OpenSuSE as far as corporate OS are concerned then.

[–] grey@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

I feel bad for fedora guys.

load more comments