[HN Gopher] IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog's view
___________________________________________________________________
IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog's view
Author : fragmede
Score : 55 points
Date : 2023-08-04 21:11 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lpi.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lpi.org)
| freedomben wrote:
| For any who don't follow the Linux kernel closely, Maddog is an
| absolute legend.
|
| His perspective is very interesting and appreciated, especially
| love how he frames things historically. Knowing the history
| really helps put things in context. TFA is long, but worth
| reading.
| MBCook wrote:
| Very well written and he provides fantastic background to help
| understand the issues.
|
| Glad to see it posted here, and to see his name again.
| linsomniac wrote:
| This all reminds me of the time I was donating a server+hosting
| to the Fedora project. I was setting up the server and asked my
| contact "I presume you'd like to be running RHEL on it?" "Yep."
| "Do you have a license key I can use?" "I can get one but it's
| annoying, just install CentOS."
| tkuraku wrote:
| This! The money isn't as big of a deal as managing the
| subscription management.
| [deleted]
| snovymgodym wrote:
| I think this was posted here before about a week ago, but
| honestly it's worth reposting.
|
| It's a very good read and does a great job of laying out "how we
| got here"
| cobaltoxide wrote:
| Now there's a name I have not heard in a long while...
| neilv wrote:
| Maddog even has a Jedi master beard.
| [deleted]
| Knee_Pain wrote:
| Yeah, especially the end of the article really explains a
| phenomenon I really hate to see in the free software world.
|
| What Red Hat is doing is completely in tune with the GPL. Not
| only you can sell libre software, but you are only entitled to
| the source if you are a user of said software. RH has no
| obligation to host a public repository of everything they do.
|
| So now, even though the GPL is followed to the letter the _real_
| libre fanatics come out and their _real_ motivations get exposed,
| namely: _" GIMME THAT I WANT IT FOR FREE!!"_ usually accompanied
| by a spiel about socialism and sharing resources or whatnot.
|
| Really taints the name of the movement, but unfortunately there
| are many people hiding behind the FSF mission just because they
| feel entitled to free stuff and hate capitalism.
| znpy wrote:
| > usually accompanied by a spiel about socialism and sharing
| resources or whatnot.
|
| worth noting that Stallman has many times explained that free
| software has nothing to do with communism
| worik wrote:
| > worth noting that Stallman has many times explained that
| free software has nothing to do with communism
|
| Much love to RMS. Respect.
|
| But you can say it as often as you want, does not make it
| true.
|
| "Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, As he landed
| his crew with care; Supporting each man on the top of the
| tide By a finger entwined in his hair.
|
| "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone
| should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have
| said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."
| BSEdlMMldESB wrote:
| another way to frame the "entitlement to free stuff" is to
| consider the real costs of duplicating and copying digital
| assets: there are essentially negligible (and less than
| marginal)
|
| though I suppose this is a little difference between 'static'
| digital assets that we don't expect will change, like digital
| art, or games, or mp3 and so on... and 'runtime software' which
| we expect will have to continuously adapt, be improved, and
| will need to get updated. though this is a fine line.
|
| why should only a few select group get to capture the enormous
| productivity boon enabled by digital copying? that I ask this
| question doesn't mean I hate capitalism, I think that there are
| things it's great at, and things at which capitalism sucks.
|
| digital assets are exactly where capitalism becomes the worst,
| whereas material assets are exactly where capitalism is at its
| best.
| MBCook wrote:
| You're ignoring the creation costs and only focusing on the
| distribution costs.
|
| The creation costs are the issue here. Red Hat didn't change
| things because their CDN bill went up.
| Knee_Pain wrote:
| but you are still not entitled to anyone's source code unless
| you are a user of the program.
|
| do you want to pay RH's contract and distribute their code
| for free? well, find someone to host a VPS that will receive
| petabytes of traffic each month then.
|
| you will soon find out, it's really not that "free"
| BSEdlMMldESB wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent
| Knee_Pain wrote:
| You are just substituting one for another. Find enough
| people to chime in a dollar to fund a VPS? Find enough
| people to form a high bandwidth bittorrent mesh?
|
| Potato potato, good luck serving the global market with a
| bittorrent version of dnf update
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Debian?
|
| Doesn't distribute using bittorrent but they're pretty
| global and what they're doing seems to be working.
| causality0 wrote:
| I wouldn't say they're exactly hiding behind the FSF. The FSF
| displays its brand of crazy front and center, like with its
| statements that not giving out your source code is morally evil
| but you should charge as much as you can for copies of your
| software. They fit right in.
| worik wrote:
| > The FSF displays its brand of crazy front and center
|
| Yes. As do IBM
|
| > They fit right in.
|
| They do.
|
| We all have a "brand of crazy"
| infamia wrote:
| I don't think we can simply forget that RH are the ones who
| made CentOS an internal project, promised to grow and support
| it, kill it off, and then call folks who are upset about the
| bait and switch "freeloaders". That seems rather dishonest,
| considering it is the polar opposite of what they initially
| promised to do.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I just installed CentOS on my new home server and it's
| supported until 2027.
| Knee_Pain wrote:
| RH is a for profit company. If something they do is a money
| sink it would be stupid to keep it going.
|
| If you perhaps dislike for-profit companies you can choose a
| distribution maintained by a non-profit company, a volunteer
| community, or a loose aggregation of individual nerds. That
| entails a kind of risk and a whole slew of problems, but the
| choice is there and it's your prerogative to choose if you
| are unsatisfied with RH's behavior
| geerlingguy wrote:
| In before someone from Red Hat comments that nobody ever used
| the term 'freeloader' in public communications...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-04 23:00 UTC)