On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote:> On 2023-07-21 00:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote: >> But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google >> Workspace. >> Why ? >> Because the general rule seems to be >> Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service >> What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely 'unaffordable' >> service. >> Because being a 'business' by default means you have a 'lot' of money >> to waste. > > > I'm not a Red Hat employee, so I'm not positive how they would respond > to that.? But, speaking as a customer who has worked with numerous > enterprise support agreements over several decades, I want to suggest > that the issue isn't that Red Hat assumes that businesses have a lot > of money to spend, it's that they're targeting a set of the market > that you might not be in right now. > > From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They give > away software.? All of their software is available at no charge, > typically in an unbranded release.? What Red Hat sells is support.Does Red Hat give away software anymore?> I don't mean helpdesk style "support-me-when-something-breaks" > support.? Support isn't something that exists only during incidents, > support is a relationship. It's periodic meetings with your account > manager and engineers. It's discussing your roadmap and your pain > points regularly, and getting direction from them. It's the > opportunity to tell Red Hat what your needs and priorities are, and > helping them make decisions about where to allocate their engineers > time to address the real needs of their customers. It's setting the > direction for the company that builds the system that sits underneath > your technical operations. That kind of support is what makes RHEL a > valuable offering. > > If you don't need the kind of support that comes with enterprise > offerings, then by all means, use the Free Software that Red Hat > provides to the community.I am confused.? Last month Red Hat announced that the source code would not be published.> But don't make the mistake of thinking that Red Hat is trying to mlik > businesses simply because they're businesses.? Red Hat's offerings are > expensive because they're enterprise-focused support plans. >Businesses can purchase in a tax-advantageous manner that you can not as an individual.? Companies do not pay tax on their expenses. That might partially explain the higher rates for commercial products and services. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not an expert network manager.? I am a physician that used CentOS 8 on my three practice servers until the big "rug pull." At the time, I had a choice between switching to the Stream or Oracle Linux 8.? I went with Oracle Linux 8 and had no complaints.? Some have suggested that the evil Oracle will execute the same IBM rug pull.? I considered that.? That concern is a non-issue now. The spirit of GPL was meant to force sharing and prevent the commercialization of the volunteer work of many.? At the time, I was confused about why IBM purchased Red Hat for an astronomical amount.? Well, it is clear now.? As the readers know, there is a significant defect in the GPL: A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/> The terms of the license are enforceable, not the spirit I think the Rocky Linux workaround will eventually fail.? I expect IBM already has a plan for all contingencies. There is reason for anger.? Is there a reason for hope? frank saporito md
+1 Frank Personally I am moving all my workloads to anything but. It's clear the direction that Red hat is taking and so be it. I've seen it multiple times with open source projects that just seems like greed kicks in and it's all about making the most $$ that they can. Oh and let's be clear, for anyone saying that Red hat wasn't making money is crazy talk, they have always made enough and that was clear when IBM bought them for 34B. Really for the most part they have become another Oracle. The main advantage for me with RHEL was the long support cycle, plenty of distros do 5 year but the 10year helped for a lot of things maybe someone will come along and do just that. On Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 11:55 AM frank saporito <frank.saporito.md at gmail.com> wrote:> > On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > On 2023-07-21 00:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote: > >> But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google > >> Workspace. > >> Why ? > >> Because the general rule seems to be > >> Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service > >> What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely 'unaffordable' > >> service. > >> Because being a 'business' by default means you have a 'lot' of money > >> to waste. > > > > > > I'm not a Red Hat employee, so I'm not positive how they would respond > > to that. But, speaking as a customer who has worked with numerous > > enterprise support agreements over several decades, I want to suggest > > that the issue isn't that Red Hat assumes that businesses have a lot > > of money to spend, it's that they're targeting a set of the market > > that you might not be in right now. > > > > From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They give > > away software. All of their software is available at no charge, > > typically in an unbranded release. What Red Hat sells is support. > > Does Red Hat give away software anymore? > > > > I don't mean helpdesk style "support-me-when-something-breaks" > > support. Support isn't something that exists only during incidents, > > support is a relationship. It's periodic meetings with your account > > manager and engineers. It's discussing your roadmap and your pain > > points regularly, and getting direction from them. It's the > > opportunity to tell Red Hat what your needs and priorities are, and > > helping them make decisions about where to allocate their engineers > > time to address the real needs of their customers. It's setting the > > direction for the company that builds the system that sits underneath > > your technical operations. That kind of support is what makes RHEL a > > valuable offering. > > > > If you don't need the kind of support that comes with enterprise > > offerings, then by all means, use the Free Software that Red Hat > > provides to the community. > > I am confused. Last month Red Hat announced that the source code would > not be published. > > > But don't make the mistake of thinking that Red Hat is trying to mlik > > businesses simply because they're businesses. Red Hat's offerings are > > expensive because they're enterprise-focused support plans. > > > Businesses can purchase in a tax-advantageous manner that you can not as > an individual. Companies do not pay tax on their expenses. > That might partially explain the higher rates for commercial products > and services. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I am not an expert network manager. I am a physician that used CentOS 8 > on my three practice servers until the big "rug pull." At the time, I > had a choice between switching to the Stream or Oracle Linux 8. I went > with Oracle Linux 8 and had no complaints. Some have suggested that the > evil Oracle will execute the same IBM rug pull. I considered that. > That concern is a non-issue now. > > The spirit of GPL was meant to force sharing and prevent the > commercialization of the volunteer work of many. At the time, I was > confused about why IBM purchased Red Hat for an astronomical amount. > Well, it is clear now. As the readers know, there is a significant > defect in the GPL: A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the > Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model > <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/> The > terms of the license are enforceable, not the spirit > > I think the Rocky Linux workaround will eventually fail. I expect IBM > already has a plan for all contingencies. > > There is reason for anger. Is there a reason for hope? > > frank saporito md > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
mario juliano grande-balletta
2023-Jul-24 12:59 UTC
[CentOS] Current RHEL fragmentation landscape
++++++++++++++1 Frank Saporito nailed it, walks like a duck, quacks like duck, it's a duck! There are dozens of alternatives and better community projects. IBM/RedHat will learn the hard way, as subscriptions decline, and the user base decreases, and CentOS/Fedora communities will end up suffering the most because of greed. -----Original Message----- From: frank saporito <frank.saporito.md at gmail.com> Reply-To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> To: centos at centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Current RHEL fragmentation landscape Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 11:55:28 -0500 On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote:> On 2023-07-21 00:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote: > > But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or > > Google > > Workspace. > > Why ? > > Because the general rule seems to be > > Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free > > service > > What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely > > 'unaffordable' > > service. > > Because being a 'business' by default means you have a 'lot' of > > money > > to waste. > > > I'm not a Red Hat employee, so I'm not positive how they would > respond > to that.? But, speaking as a customer who has worked with numerous > enterprise support agreements over several decades, I want to suggest > that the issue isn't that Red Hat assumes that businesses have a lot > of money to spend, it's that they're targeting a set of the market > that you might not be in right now. > > From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They > give > away software.? All of their software is available at no charge, > typically in an unbranded release.? What Red Hat sells is support.Does Red Hat give away software anymore?> I don't mean helpdesk style "support-me-when-something-breaks" > support.? Support isn't something that exists only during incidents, > support is a relationship. It's periodic meetings with your account > manager and engineers. It's discussing your roadmap and your pain > points regularly, and getting direction from them. It's the > opportunity to tell Red Hat what your needs and priorities are, and > helping them make decisions about where to allocate their engineers > time to address the real needs of their customers. It's setting the > direction for the company that builds the system that sits underneath > your technical operations. That kind of support is what makes RHEL a > valuable offering. > > If you don't need the kind of support that comes with enterprise > offerings, then by all means, use the Free Software that Red Hat > provides to the community.I am confused.? Last month Red Hat announced that the source code would not be published.> But don't make the mistake of thinking that Red Hat is trying to mlik > businesses simply because they're businesses.? Red Hat's offerings > are > expensive because they're enterprise-focused support plans. >Businesses can purchase in a tax-advantageous manner that you can not as an individual.? Companies do not pay tax on their expenses. That might partially explain the higher rates for commercial products and services. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- I am not an expert network manager.? I am a physician that used CentOS 8 on my three practice servers until the big "rug pull." At the time, I had a choice between switching to the Stream or Oracle Linux 8.? I went with Oracle Linux 8 and had no complaints.? Some have suggested that the evil Oracle will execute the same IBM rug pull.? I considered that.? That concern is a non-issue now. The spirit of GPL was meant to force sharing and prevent the commercialization of the volunteer work of many.? At the time, I was confused about why IBM purchased Red Hat for an astronomical amount.? Well, it is clear now.? As the readers know, there is a significant defect in the GPL: A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/> The terms of the license are enforceable, not the spirit I think the Rocky Linux workaround will eventually fail.? I expect IBM already has a plan for all contingencies. There is reason for anger.? Is there a reason for hope? frank saporito md _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 2023-07-22 09:55, frank saporito wrote:> On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They >> give away software.? All of their software is available at no charge, >> typically in an unbranded release.? What Red Hat sells is support. > > Does Red Hat give away software anymore?Yes?? I'm not aware of any Red Hat software that isn't Free Software.> I am confused.? Last month Red Hat announced that the source code > would not be published.That's not what they announced.? The major-release branch of RHEL's source code is still published to the CentOS Stream git repos. I think it's important to point out that Red Hat never published *all* of RHEL's package source code.? For the first six months of any release of RHEL, they would publish de-branded source by essentially taking one artifact from each build (the src.rpm), unpacking that in a git repository, removing the primary source code archive, debranding what was left, committing all of that, and then pushing the result.? It was basically git as a fancy FTP. They've stopped doing that, in favor of publishing the major-release branch of the git repos for the entire primary support lifecycle of the major release.> The spirit of GPL was meant to force sharing and prevent the > commercialization of the volunteer work of many.It definitely wasn't.? GPL software can't be made closed-source. Customers have to receive the source code (or an offer for it), and they have the rights that the license guarantees.? But GPL software can definitely be commercialized.