[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1687531153074-0.png ( 22.15 KB , 762x723 , closed-hat.png )

File: 1687531153074-1.png ( 16.84 KB , 1244x295 , redhat shortterm cashout.png )

 No.12208

Redhat is going closed source for Redhat enterprise linux (RHEL).

Jeff Geerling the guru for Ansible server deploy scripts is already jumping ship
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2023/dear-red-hat-are-you-dumb

Behind the scenes this is probably something that resulted from IBM buying Redhat. They're probably going to wreck the RHEL ecosystem with this move. It seems like a short-term cash-grab.

I don't quite understand the legal stuff how they can close off gpl software. It's probably not a big deal given that there are many other enterprise Linux distros, but it's still kinda fucked up to burn such a big project.
>>

 No.12209

>I don't quite understand the legal stuff how they can close off gpl software.
I'm not quite sure how they think they're gonna make a lot more profit like this, since it's trivial for a subscription-paying client to take the GPL source code received from IBM and then immediately distribute it to the wider public.
>>

 No.12210

>>12209
>since it's trivial for a subscription-paying client to take the GPL source code received from IBM and then immediately distribute it to the wider public.

Apparently not, at least Alma Linux seems to think they can't share the sources

<Red Hat has decided to continue to use the Customer Portal to share source code with our partners and customers, while treating CentOS Stream as the venue for collaboration with the community.


<This change means that we, as builders of a RHEL clone, will now be responsible for following the licensing and agreements that are in place around Red Hat’s interfaces, in addition to following the licenses included in the software sources. Unfortunately the way we understand it today, Red Hat’s user interface agreements indicate that re-publishing sources acquired through the customer portal would be a violation of those agreements.


https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/

I admit that i don't understand this. The software comes with a gpl license and hence you should be able to publish them as long as you uphold the gpl terms like giving attribution etc.
>>

 No.12211

>>12210
I don't see how IBM could possibly enforce this. All it takes is a single subscriber of theirs to anonymously redistribute the software to undo their little exclusivity game.
>>

 No.12212

>>12211
You are correct this will probably happen, some people will brute force it open, even Windows had it's source code leaked a few times. But more people want an open software ecosystem with all the amenities of the FOSS world, and they're just going to move on to another server Linux distro that wants to play with them in the open.
>>

 No.12213

Consequences for fedora?
>>

 No.12214

File: 1687676455254.png ( 81.1 KB , 400x205 , Iswitched.png )

yes, red hat, clean the space for ubuntu
>>

 No.12215

>>12213
Fedora gets lots of money from Redhat/IMB but it's owned independently. So this probably won't affect them.
>>

 No.12216

File: 1687705597393.jpg ( 162.7 KB , 1600x1000 , animu.jpg )

>>12215
I dunno about their "independence".
Just look at them yapping their mouth in the recent escalation of the enterprise open source wars.

<Fedora considers the Server Side Public License (v1) to be a Non-Free license. It is the belief of Fedora that the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be aggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users. Additionally, it seems clear that the intent of the license author is to cause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt towards commercial users of software under that license. To consider the SSPL to be "Free" or "Open Source" causes that shadow to be cast across all other licenses in the FOSS ecosystem, even though none of them carry that risk.

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt? what is this, a bitcoin reddit?

Curiously familiar to OSI whinings too..
<We’ve seen that several companies have abandoned their original dedication to the open source community by switching their core products from an open source license, one approved by the Open Source Initiative, to a “fauxpen” source license.
Very curious expression there "an open source license, one approved by the Open Source Initiative"
how authoritative.. after all, they do have "Open Source" in their corporate name lol

Funny how these corporate whores so authoritatively speak for "the community" against other corporations down the supply chain (Elastic, Mongo) and try to mobilize their sheep against them.

The story is as old as capitalism.
>>

 No.12218

tho for fedora there are no consequences because it's basically an alpha of RHEL (with CentOS Stream being a beta)
bug testing by unpaid monkeys, who wouldn't like it?
>>

 No.12219

File: 1687716821093.jpg ( 179.29 KB , 1200x893 , secretvolcanobase.jpg )

>>12216
>Fedora is making FOSS-hostile statements
OK that looks bad but you have to prioritize your analysis on what they do. So far Fedora has always published their sources and as far as i know they have not fucked with any of the forked projects.

>Very curious expression there "an open source license, one approved by the Open Source Initiative"

how authoritative.. after all, they do have "Open Source" in their corporate name lol
I know that "corporate opensource" is intended as a ploy to eventually close off software development. And their strange communication that tries to mimic an organic collective is really cringe. But this is a concession none the less, consider how much more hostile corporate PR used to be.

The genuine FOSS system means free labor through contributions. The openness of genuine FOSS also means more available expert labor power because people get into these fields through playing around with computers and software as a hobby. Nobody buys a pricey enterprise license to play around with server software, they'll play around with the stuff they get for free and without hassle. All these battles already happened in the 90s and the proprietary locked down crap failed because it requires jumping through too many hoops, that are not the computer stuff that's actually interesting to people.

IBM is going to make a bunch of money from people who now have to panic-buy a subscription in order to prevent their systems from breaking, but in the long term RHEL is going to fade into an obscure niche like so many other things that IBM has ruined. It's possible that they might one day sell RHEL because it faded too much and then it comes back into the FOSS world.

For most people none of this is really an ideological question but a practical question. Proper FOSS means that nobody will pull the rug from under your feet. Many people go along with "corporate open source" because they think it means that corporations are granting assurances. And the REHL affair probably has burned enough people that many will reconsider this assessment. The is an ongoing process where all the corporate bullying of this type produces more people that think like Stallmann.

For the ideological question.

I think proprietary closed source stuff is derived from a in part feudal and part capitalist mode of production. It's a system that was devised in the 1800s and adapted to the information system from that era. Today it's an anachronism upheld by institutional momentum. It's mainly a tool for monopoly capital, proprietary stuff is not more profitable unless you're already a big monopoly. Which is probably a reason why free market ideologues are also strongly opposed to proprietary licenses.

FOSS is something that emerged solely from a capitalist mode of production, it has no feudal influences. I don't think that Canonical for example is being a bad capitalist for upholding FOSS. They will likely get a lot of RHEL refugees now and grow their customer base. All the people that use FOSS software for free, that's basically advertisement that costs nothing, and the free contributions that originate from this make this a net gain. While all the bullying associated for imposing proprietary restrictions, represents a cost and is negative advertisement.

Socialists like FOSS because it's the progressive side of capitalism, it's a better way of producing technology.

The ideologically socialist method would be something that actively turns proprietary source software into open source source software. I don't think that anybody has figured out a trick for doing this yet, you know other than through a revolution that seizes the m.o.p. Even stuff like reverse engineering binaries is nothing more than standard competitive capitalist praxis.

I think we have to ask our self is why so many capitalists still want to larp as a James Bond Villain that's building a secret base in a Volcano, when it comes to developing technology.
>>

 No.12254

File: 1689073431114.png ( 1.55 MB , 1064x983 , we'll see.png )

..AAAAAAAAND Red Hat is now pushing for telemetry in Fedora lol

we'll see if Fedora is akshully a """community""" project or an IBM's little bitch, with what happens to this proposal lol
>>

 No.12255

tho I remember reports about default fedora randomly contacting some servers even before

corporate suits think that every linux user is like their forum bitch that wouldn't spin up a mitmproxy to shittest their claims
>>

 No.12256

>>12254
Yeah given the context of Red Hat enterprise linux going closed source it does look ominous that Fedora is talking about adding telemetry.

We kinda have to wait and see, if they just do optional data collection about hardware-use and software-crashes. That would be acceptable.

But it certainly feels like they might trying to add malicious features.
>>

 No.12257

>>12256
>if they just do optional data collection about hardware-use and software-crashes. That would be acceptable.
they're pushing hard for opt-out because nobody opts-in for telemetry ever lol

and opt-out means they can always enable telemetry with the next update

SO, if opt-out version passes, every fedora user would officially get adopted by the IBM lol
>>

 No.12258

>>12215
>Fedora gets lots of money from Redhat/IMB but it's owned independently. So this probably won't affect them.
Also, formal ownership doesn't mean shit here. Fedora folks feed off the crumbs that the Red Hat throws them.

If you're a corporate suit in a """steering committee""" with a career n shit, would you risk to lose your ONLY upstream for some end user agency? lol
>>

 No.12259

>>12218
>bug testing by unpaid monkeys, who wouldn't like it?
looking at my past comment, it was stupid of me not to notice what a suit might not like here lol

obviously, a corporate suit that gets bombarded by "data" this and "data" that buzzwords every second, might not like that there is not enough "data" generated from the end users, even if they submit bug reports lol
>>

 No.12260

>>12257
>they can always re-enable telemetry with the next update
That might actually piss off the Linux community enough to fork it, maybe we'll get freedora linux

>>12258
The money is in the support contracts for the enterprise version and a major purpose of fedora is being the desktop version for the sever-admins that want the same system for their workstation as the one they're using on the server. It's entirely possible if the shenanigans get too egregious, that devs and support-contract clients switch over to forks, maybe there will be blue-hat enterprise Linux for the server and freedora for the desktop and IBM ends up with a bunch of dead projects. It could also just kill the red-hat ecosystem.
>>

 No.12261

>>12260
>maybe there will be blue-hat enterprise Linux
horrible name

black hat is much better

>It could also just kill the red-hat ecosystem.

I don't think they care. Red Hat has big contracts with DOD.
>>

 No.12274

File: 1689700501807.png ( 17.42 KB , 270x195 , suse forks rhel.png )

So apparently Open Suse is going to fork RHEL,

<SUSE declared it would invest more than $10 million toward the development and maintenance of a RHEL-compatible distribution available to all without restrictions.


https://www.zdnet.com/article/suse-to-fork-red-hat-enterprise-linux/
>>

 No.12276

>>12274
but susa has its own enterprise linux that is not RHEL-compatible.. so what's the fucking point?
>>

 No.12277

tho I'm all for susa rolling in. Their Open Build System is awesome
>>

 No.12278

>>12276
>what's the point?
ibm/redhat has alienated a sizeable chunck of their customer base with their recent moves and most of the free code contributors. SUSE is capitalizing on that.

>susa has its own enterprise linux

A RHEL-compatible is complementary to their own offering.

If you have a company network that runs on rhel, switching over to suse enterprise linux is a lot of effort, but if Suse can offer you a RHEL-compatible, it's basically zero effort for you to switch over to their services.

Unique IPs: 10

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]