Red Hat Continues Pleading The Case For Its CentOS Changes

[trasz]

I am curious what's FreeBSD is going to use for it's Linux ABI. It's been running Centos packages so far.

It stays with CentOS for now, simply because it's there and it works. In the long term we'll probably migrate to use Ubuntu instead - the primary goal of Linuxulator is closed source desktop applications, which in the Linux world usually run under Ubuntu.

[aht0]

Red Hat has an established history of being untrustworthy. From the expanding scope of systemd, reimplementing things without understanding what is being replaced, rejecting the concept of bugs (I know LP isn't all of red hat, but such behavior needs to be reined in at any company). The flip-flopping on BTRFS support, replacing it with their current stratis "solution" which has felt very hacked together (been rejected out of hand at work due to being unable to correctly account for space usage), and now abridging CentOS' EOL.
On one hand, the new crop of replacements is reassuring, on the other, they're still tracking a shaky source. I don't think SuSE could've mounted a better advertising campaign. Between willing to to block on steam, offering security toggles at install time, and listening to feedback on how microos should be built, they definitely keep their ear to the ground when it comes to the community.

Funny that IBM was selected as one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for 2019 and 2018.

I am curious what's FreeBSD is going to use for it's Linux ABI. It's been running Centos packages so far.

[ssokolow]

CentOS owes Redhat money for every single CentOS installation ever made.

If you'd actually read the GPL, you'd know that the GPL's terms are such that once someone who legitimately receives GPLed source (eg. paid for binaries and then exercised their right to get the source) redistributes it to someone else, the terms of the GPL are all that apply, so CentOS owed them nothing even before getting taken over as long as the source came from Red Hat to them in a legitimate way and the CentOS people made their own builds.

GPL 2.0:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

The GPL 2.0 is unsatisfiable in a 1 = 2 sort of way if you add additional restrictions to redistribution of source code.

GPL 3.0:

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

Under the GPL 3.0, putting your source code under GPL means "If I add any additional restrictions, ignore them. The GPL's creators only let me use it if I agree that restrictions I attempt to add to it hold no legal weight."

Both versions of the GPL text itself are licensed to you under terms analogous to a Creative Commons NoDerivs license so you can't remove those clauses, and GNU and GPL are trademarks only licensed to you for use with the original license texts.

(Creative Commons does something similar with their trademarks. The text of CC licenses is CC0'd (public domain with a fallback for jurisdictions like Germany where you can't prematurely put things into the public domain) but "Creative Commons", "CC", their logos, etc. are trademarks which are explicitly restricted to only being used to talk about their original un-modified licenses. Saying your license was created by modifying a CC license violates the same part of trademark law that forces TV ads to say "the next leading brand". You're not allowed to promote your brand by piggy-backing on your competitor's name recognition.)

Germany is actually an interesting case because the CC0 has to do three things:

1. Public domain dedication
2. Fallback license because Germany doesn't let you prematurely put things into the public domain.
3. Legally binding promise to not sue over rights granted to you later, because German law doesn't let you pre-emptively waive rights that don't exist yet.

(see the "like Germany" link for my source on that.)

[gavron]

No that -ISN'T- how it is.. You need to read the GPL. Actually read the damn thing... The GPL is all about distributing the sources to anybody that you also distribute binaries to. If you use Redhat, then Redhat must provide the sources to you. CentOS -isn't- Redhat... CentOS owes Redhat money for every single CentOS installation ever made...

Just move on to Oracle, mooch off them... Please...

I've read the GPL; thanks for making it about me.

CentOS -isn't - Redhat

RH bought CentOS in 2014. I'm sure 6 years is difficult to remember, but facts are facts.

CentOS owes Redhat money...

Yeah, and my right pocket owes my left pocket some pocket change.

Seriously, YOU go read the GPL and YOU go find out CentOS has been Redhat's longer than half a decade, and then come back and tell everyone else who owes whom money.

Merry Christmas, which is the nicest way I can say I'm done with your ignorance.

E

[duby229]

Free and Open Source Software is free, so the $0.00 is the right price. Open source means you can get the source code and build the distro (or whatever software) yourself. So that's good.

Knocking people for "wanting $0.00 RedHat" is disingenuous. (In other words you're full of it and need to read up on what an open source license is.)

RHEL was king.
CentOS was RHEL for people who didn't want to pay for RHEL. (Yes, that's how open source licenses work, and whether you LIKE it or HATE it, that's how it is.)

No that -ISN'T- how it is.. You need to read the GPL. Actually read the damn thing... The GPL is all about distributing the sources to anybody that you also distribute binaries to. If you use Redhat, then Redhat must provide the sources to you. CentOS -isn't- Redhat... CentOS owes Redhat money for every single CentOS installation ever made...

Just move on to Oracle, mooch off them... Please...

[gavron]

Free and Open Source Software is free, so the $0.00 is the right price. Open source means you can get the source code and build the distro (or whatever software) yourself. So that's good.

Knocking people for "wanting $0.00 RedHat" is disingenuous. (In other words you're full of it and need to read up on what an open source license is.)

RHEL was king.
CentOS was RHEL for people who didn't want to pay for RHEL. (Yes, that's how open source licenses work, and whether you LIKE it or HATE it, that's how it is.)

CentOS Stream (and Fedora) are methods to beta-test new software on people who depend on the software they previously thought was accessible. You can argue "Well then, buy an RHEL license" or IBM license) or whatever... this is a fundamental change from "I can download the distro, build the distro, run the distro, and be safe from random upgrades over the next few weeks."

For desktop users this is almost meaningless. For server operators and datacenter managers this means "freeze all upgrades; find a new distro; cloud or Oracle [F L E]; and move to that." It's hardly a straight line or orthogonal upgrade. This is almost an about face.

Nobody risks their business on something that could fail with an update tomorrow.
See how well it works for Microsoft. Wait, is it yet another patch-Tuesday yet?

Watch your six, and don't do CentOS Stream or anything else equally volatile and dangerous that impacts your family's ability to eat or pay rent/mortgage.

Ehud
P.S. I was a huge fan of Fedora as they did amazing work on drivers. Then I was a big fan of RH before IBM bought them. I wasn't excited when they made building the no-support version hard. Then I was a big fan of CentOS because they took the "hard" out of "hard to build". But RH bought them. IBM then bought RH. At this point I'm looking for the next distro for servers ... and [F L E] we'll see which cream rises to the top. My point is not to share a resume, but to say "Hey, I've been through this trench with many many other techs, engineers, designers, and datacenter people for years. The goal is to make the customer happy and ensure stability. This USED to be it. Now this is NOT it."

[mulenmar]

One of the Jupiter Broadcasting podcasts (Linux Unplugged, maybe?) had a really good episode about this. I think the title was, "Murder of a Distro".

Apparently, even the Red Hat guy they interviewed doesn't like the way this went down -- so far as intersection of the poor communication of the purpose of the change, the cutting short CentOS 8's lifespan, and the not finalizing and announcing the expanded official free-for-universities/single-deployment RHEL go.

The entire point of CentOS Stream is to let people use it for free, but also contribute patches to it.

The impression I got is thus: CentOS Stream is not the beta-testing Unstable/Sid distro, that would be Fedora/Rawhide respectively, like always. It's more that RedHat is now the equivalent of Debian OldStable but with more eyes still on it, and CentOS Stream is like frozen/slushy Testing.

Mind you, I don't have a pumpkin in this contest, I find all Red Hat distros I've tried painful. Too obsolete (CentOS), too many constant segfaults (Fedora, though admittedly that was a few years ago), and needing too many 3rd-party repos to provide software more appropriate for a home OS (both). Arch and Debian fill the same niches for me.

[Paradigm Shifter]

Concerning #2, that's not true in the sense that you think it is. It's not about being free of charge, it's about being free to modify. If you use their products in any way then you -should- pay them for it.

I think CentOS, Rocky, SuSe, Mandriva, Oracle, etc they all owe Redhat Billions of dollars...

Then the entire Linux ecosystem owes Linux Torvalds and those other early developers, along with others like Eric S. Raymond and Richard Stallman every penny they've ever made. That game can be played forever if you wind the clock back enough...

Do RedHat pay for every project they use? I know they provide monetary support to some of the bigger ones which are an integral part of the RedHat experience, like Gnome. Not every project details monetary supporters publicly. But the Linux community seems often seems to accept community participation, bug reporting and code fix contributions as payment (although obviously money is still nice). At what point does the occasional bug fix repay the use of a project which is absolutely critical for what you use it for? But that is a whole other can of worms...

[eva2000]

They're still trying to convince us that this is good for CentOS Stream (and maybe it is), but, fact is, nobody cared about CentOS Stream before and nobody does now.
People want CentOS, not CentOS Stream.

Exactly ! CentOS 8 is dead and CentOS Stream should just be renamed Redhat Stream so CentOS users can grieve and move on!

[evasb]

You know what, I think I'm starting to change my mind... All of you guys that are pissed because you can't mooch off of an outdated so called "stable" but -actually- unstable distro, maybe you -should- move to mooching off of Oracle.... Go ahead make that switch.... Mooch away....

EDIT: If Redhat died, what exactly do you think would happen to CentOS, Oracle, SuSe, etc.... None of them can be what Redhat is, none of them care about Open Source like Redhat does...

SUSE has nothing to do with Red Hat. SLES is not a RHEL clone.