> I can't predict the future but my feeling is that AlmaLinux has a good > chance to become the second Gold standard.I disagree with you. Both Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux are in a very comfortable position, and they will likely stay that way. my predict is that they will continue as a #rebuilder / #freeloader, writing software is a hard work. SuSe hardfork will probably be only an stable version of CentOS Stream. #offensive terms to the community :-), hide hat wrote it.
>> I can't predict the future but my feeling is that AlmaLinux has a good >> chance to become the second Gold standard. > > I disagree with you. Both Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux are in a very > comfortable position, and they will likely stay that way.We'll see, Rocky Linux wants to stay a 100% rebuid of RHEL. Red Hat could be tempted to hide more of the sources of RHEL, the parts not under GPL. This won't hurt AlmaLinux as much because there is no real need to be 100% RHEL compatible. It must be 100% compatible with itself, sure.> > my predict is that they will continue as a #rebuilder / #freeloader, > writing software is a hard work.We shouldn't forget that Red Hat didn't write all the software for RHEL. They wrote some parts of it but "freeloaded" 90% from the community. I'm also part of this community and never asked for a cent from Red Hat. The deal is quite clear, isn't it?> > SuSe hardfork will probably be only an stable version of CentOS Stream. > > #offensive terms to the community :-), hide hat wrote it. >These terms are a shame for those who speak them out. Simon
On 2023-07-20 04:36, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:> > my predict is that they will continue as a #rebuilder / #freeloader, > writing software is a hard work. > #offensive terms to the community :-), hide hat wrote it.No, they didn't. That term was bandied about on social media by people who were speculating about the reasoning behind discontinuing the practice of debranding and publishing packages from RHEL minor releases. Mike McGrath responded to the use of that term by social media personalities to explain that the only group that Red Hat (for better or worse) considers freeloaders are large businesses who keep a small number of licensed RHEL systems so that when they have problems in their production network (which isn't running RHEL), they can reproduce the problem on RHEL and ask Red Hat for support.? That practice is dishonest and abusive. If you're not doing that specific thing, then Red Hat is not calling you a freeloader.