AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL

[Quackdoc]

Says who? Alma's faq pretty much says "if you found a bug, go file it w red hat"

so what?

[andyprough]

This thread is like 80% trolls

It's actually 98% - everyone except you and me. And I'm not so sure about you.

[fitzie]

again even if that WAS the case in which I highly disagree with alma can be credited with expanding platform support which as I said, RHEL explicitly does not consider a leech. address that.

that would change my mind. rhel says they support x86-64 arm64, ppc64le and IBM z. did alma add a major platform?

[mSparks]

so what?

So now all those paying red hat to pirate other peoples work will have to file any and all bug reports themselves.

[fadedmaple]

In the end, all of this uncertainty around RHEL will undoubtedly boost the adoption of Ubuntu LTS in enterprises, especially in non-US[A] territories.

And with China's openKylin essentially depending upon Ubuntu as its foundation, Canonical has indeed a very bright future ahead...

How ignorant, openkylin is desktop focused and doesn't even have a server version.
And almost all local Chinese RHEL replacements use yum instead of apt!

[fadedmaple]

How ignorant, openkylin is desktop focused and doesn't even have a server version.
And almost all local Chinese RHEL replacements use yum instead of apt!

Basically, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei all have their own "Amazon Linux" which is not compatible with RHEL.

[sophisticles]

Fuck me if I ever touch "made"-in China Linux (even if only partly made).
Imagine going to a customer, a business, anybody (everywhere but in China of course), who is only amateur-level aware of what Chinese do to software -- and yes I've seen those lamenting: but! it's the government and not all the people. Have you seen recent, fresh out Chinese students manifest that non-government China?... so spare me -- and telling them that yes!... you recommend Chinese OS/software to run their bank or school.

I agree, I would never use any OS that was made in China, or Russia for that matter.

Hell, I wouldn't trust most OSes not made in the U.S. or one of the strategic partners, like England, France, Germany, counties like that.

I trust MX Linux because it's made in Greece, but if I thought there was anything shady, that would be the end of that.

[sophisticles]

Hating the GPL more than proprietary licenses that give you less rights is bizarre...if GPL really hurt the ecosystem, how did Linux go from one man hobby project to dominating the world, except the desktop, and BSD went from widely adopted to dominated by GNU+Linux?

Linux was never a "one man hobby", read up on the GNU Project and how what we call Linux came into being today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

Make no mistake, the GPL is not about freedom, far from it, it's about control.

Stallman has been very honest about what he is, the GPL was the first copyleft license because he was a leftists, it was not about rights, it was about controlling his fellow man, much like all leftists try to do.

A truly free license would say "Here's the source code, do whatever you want with it", that's real freedom.

The GPL is about putting restrictions on what you can do with the software.

It's the opposite of free.

[mSparks]

Linux was never a "one man hobby", read up on the GNU Project and how what we call Linux came into being today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

Make no mistake, the GPL is not about freedom, far from it, it's about control.

Stallman has been very honest about what he is, the GPL was the first copyleft license because he was a leftists, it was not about rights, it was about controlling his fellow man, much like all leftists try to do.

A truly free license would say "Here's the source code, do whatever you want with it", that's real freedom.

The GPL is about putting restrictions on what you can do with the software.

It's the opposite of free.

gpl puts absolutely NO restrictions on what you can do with the software.

It manages (very effectively) how much you can infringe on the authors absolute right to exclusive distribution of their work.

What you seem to be thinking of is Sonys build of openBSD. If you really think the PS5 has more freedom than any Linux distribution then I want some of what you've been smoking.

[Mez']

Good.
The less importance and credibility Red Hat gets in the wider Linux actual community (not the fake communities RH create for influenceable people), the best it is for users in general.