[HN Gopher] CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Assoc...
___________________________________________________________________
CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association
Author : LaSombra
Score : 134 points
Date : 2023-08-10 16:40 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.suse.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.suse.com)
| tlhunter wrote:
| I love how they throw Java into the trademarks section. Java
| isn't even mentioned anywhere. Looks like a case of Oracle being
| Oracle.
| paulddraper wrote:
| "Write once, trademark everywhere"
| papercrane wrote:
| I think it's because they used the trademark "Oracle" so they
| just included Oracle's standard trademark disclaimer.
|
| If you search for that paragraph, you'll find lots of examples
| of it being reproduced verbatim.
| DarkmSparks wrote:
| I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. And tbh, these
| days, with whatever bad medicine google feels like foistering on
| us this week, Oracle are truly beginning to look more and more
| like the "good guys".
|
| As much as any large evilcorp can be the good guys anyway.
| fweimer wrote:
| Based on https://openela.org/about/ this appears to be a source-
| only distribution. They do not speak of binary builds (just
| "buildable"), that's apparently up to the downstream
| participants.
| ticviking wrote:
| I'm not sure that's a bad thing given that the previous
| approach was hampered so much by confusion about where the
| value is.
|
| If this is a commitment to a set of source then the players can
| compete on ease of use, support or other stuff.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Right now I'm thinking about it in the way that I think about
| Let's Encrypt.
|
| Let's Encrypt has their own infrastructure, governance, etc.,
| but I don't use Let's Encrypt products to interact with Let's
| Encrypt. Instead, I interact with Let's Encrypt via products
| like Certbot from the EFF.
|
| If OpenELA's going to provide source, and I access that
| source through builds provided by CIQ or SUSE or someone
| else, then I'll be thinking of it in the same way as I think
| about Let's Encrypt.
| toyg wrote:
| Or java.
| roschdal wrote:
| OpenSuse is wonderful
| BossingAround wrote:
| What's the differentiator from the Fedora/Centos/RHEL line?
| pxc wrote:
| Probably YAST1 and the Open Build Service2. I think the
| latter is especially great. There's a public instance of it
| hosted by openSUSE3, and you can use it to build packages for
| almost any distro and get a feel for it.
|
| --
|
| 1: https://yast.opensuse.org/documentation
|
| 2: https://openbuildservice.org/
|
| 3: https://build.opensuse.org/
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| For me: yast (easy to use GUI/TUI for many administration
| tasks -- useful for less experienced admins), snapper
| (filesystem snapshot management tool which automatically
| creates them before and after package management operations
| and allows you to boot into them or roll back if anything
| goes wrong. Quite similar to FreeBSD boot environments.)
|
| zypper is probably the best 'classic' package manager there
| is (although dnf is great too; it's more of an argument
| against Debian and its derivatives).
|
| Then there is https://build.openbuildservice.org which
| automatically builds packages for all supported distributions
| and architectures from a single RPM spec file and creates a
| ready to use repository for you.
|
| OpenSUSE Leap is built from SLES sources and is thus
| comparable in its stability guarantees to the old CentOS (or
| any of the current RHEL rebuilds).
| Espionage724 wrote:
| I found YaST to get in my way at times; I particularly
| remember YaST's Network panel hanging because I had
| StevenBlack's huge HOSTS file. I do like the network panel
| though for changing static IPs; I had to do some searching
| to try to figure out how to do that on Fedora, and ended up
| using Cockpit instead (not sure how to do it cli).
|
| I'm confused on the differences in repo priority between
| zypper (oS TW) and dnf (Fedora). Apparently dnf also allows
| setting repo priority, but I've never had to do it, and
| packages seem to come from expected repos without having to
| specify (stuff comes from RPM Fusion if I have those repos
| added). On TW I had to manually specify repo priority to
| something other than 99 and set a flag to allow vendor
| changes to have similar behavior; I like that kind of
| control but I didn't need to do it on Fedora.
|
| OBS is nice in-concept but I don't like the idea of using
| it outside of openSUSE. I think Launchpad/PPAs for Ubuntu,
| Copr for Fedora, and AUR for Arch. I think OBS for openSUSE
| and don't like the idea of using OBS for other distros,
| even if that's one of the big benefits and point to OBS.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| AppArmor vs SELinux
|
| I've ran Ubuntu and openSUSE servers and aside from a profile
| issue with PHP and openSUSE, I don't know if AppArmor is even
| protecting anything. Everything just works and it makes me
| think AppArmor is only applied to specific apps/services and
| not globally.
|
| SELinux (at least on Fedora) is present, everywhere, and will
| gladly let you know if something is blocked because of it. I
| prefer this kind of protection even if it's more annoying at
| times :p Just a few weeks ago I learned about bin_t and that
| made my SELinux config for that service a lot more simple.
| whalesalad wrote:
| https://openela.org
| [deleted]
| systems wrote:
| i am getting a warning from chrome about this site certificate
| , or is it just me
| jhalstead wrote:
| No issues when I opened it on mobile Chrome.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Are you going through a corporate proxy? Some of them will
| MITM newly-registered domains but not established ones.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| no warning Google Chrome 112.0.5615.165
| (Official Build) (64-bit) Revision
| c262f36e6b1d711ee42d4fbe1343b49960593f18-refs/branch-
| heads/5615@{#1297} OS Linux JavaScript V8
| 11.2.214.14 User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64)
| AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
| Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Command Line
| /usr/bin/google-chrome-stable --flag-switches-begin --flag-
| switches-end --origin-trial-disabled-features=WebGPU
| Executable Path /opt/google/chrome/google-chrome
| pxc wrote:
| > It will provide an open process to access source code that
| organizations can use to build distributions compatible with
| RHEL
|
| So they're not trying to create something like RHEL but in a
| way that is committed to being more 'open' somehow. They're
| still shooting for the bug-for-bug stuff, and still an effort
| that's parasitic on RHEL in terms of its substantive
| development.
|
| This whole situation sucks.
| uberduper wrote:
| Seems like an obvious next step is to get enterprise hardware
| and software vendors to begin certifying on OpenELA in
| addition to RHEL. OpenELA10 or w/e could stand on its own as
| a competing enterprise linux standard that everyone is free
| to build from.
| pxc wrote:
| > OpenELA10 or w/e could stand on its own as a competing
| enterprise linux standard that everyone is free to build
| from.
|
| Idk. How is that standing on its own? SUSE already has a
| perfectly good enterprise Linux distro in SLE. If the point
| is to have an alternative standard that anyone can build
| from, why not just use that as the base?
| eraser215 wrote:
| 100%
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| RHEL does a lot of work, yes, but a lot of that comes from
| volunteers. RHEL does contribute kernel patches; but Oracle
| and SUSE contribute there, too.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| If you don't want other people using your source code should
| you be making open source software?
| CrLf wrote:
| This is United Linux 21 years later. But this time, instead of
| building a distribution to compete with Red Hat, it's based on
| Red Hat (in practice, it _is_ Red Hat).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Linux
|
| > "No subscriptions. No passwords. No barriers. Freeloaders
| welcome."
|
| I'm sure they're trying to be cheeky. But it also comes off as
| confirming Red Hat's position. OpenELA isn't about community,
| it's about having a base (i.e. bug-for-bug RHEL clone) upon which
| to sell support contracts.
|
| If you really want to stay in the Red Hat ecosystem, I'd suggest
| going with AlmaLinux instead. They seem to have a more honest
| understanding of what "community" means.
|
| Some people are throwing the word "freeloaders" around. It seems
| clear that "freeloaders" are not people running RHEL clones, but
| indeed there are some "freeloaders" in the community.
| creatonez wrote:
| If you're unsure which enterprise linux fork to go with, here
| is a panel discussion between AlmaLinux, RockyLinux, and Oracle
| - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMPjt_RgXA. They all lay out
| their philosophy and discuss the changes going forward.
| Unfortunately a SUSE representative couldn't make it, but you
| can fill in the gaps from their press material.
|
| I tend to respect the AlmaLinux way of doing things, but I
| respect where the others are coming from.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| Most of the businesses that want to run Red hat compatible
| Linux probably don't care about any of that stuff. They just
| want to run Linux and have it be essentially as difficult to
| maintain as their landscaping or electricity.
| [deleted]
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| I suppose this is both good and bad. I wonder if Red Hat/IBM
| anticipated this, and how they will respond to it.
| BossingAround wrote:
| Why would they respond? This just confirms their position as
| the leader in the Linux space, doesn't it?
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Leader? Citation needed.
|
| For example, LWN's most-recent report[0] on who contributed
| Linux kernel patches puts either three or four different
| companies above Red Hat, depending on if you're looking at
| changesets or lines changed.
|
| Regardless, if leadership is theirs to lose, then they're
| doing a good job of it.
|
| [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/936113/
| colechristensen wrote:
| Eh, it's good. IBM didn't want to continue supporting community
| things and so here we are, the RedHat business model was a bit
| tricky and increasingly so because of cloud computing.
|
| The great value of RedHat was _supported_ software. You could
| buy one of those $10,000 per seat software packages for some
| engineering discipline that was guaranteed to work by RedHat
| and the vendor and if it wasn 't they were quite motivated and
| helpful in fixing your problem quickly.
|
| RedHat also was trusted to monitor and fix security problems
| quickly, and was in the privileged position of getting
| notifications about them before they were public so they could
| be fixed.
|
| The question is how do you get people to fund these two things?
| eraser215 wrote:
| It's been made abundantly clear by many people in many places
| that this isn't an IBM thing.
| colechristensen wrote:
| It is not clear what you mean.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Links pls?
| lbhdc wrote:
| I am curious how they feel as well. It seems like it won't
| impact their support contracts since things built with openela
| will be rhel compatible. But surely they cut people off for
| moat reasons.
|
| Why do you think this is a bad change? I was thinking
| additional players in the space would make for a more robust
| ecosystem.
| mulmen wrote:
| I am SUSE-curious after all the drama and lost trust with RedHat
| and IBM but any partnership with Oracle makes me uncomfortable.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well it was SCO back in the United Linux days--albeit it wasn't
| the evil SCO yet at that time. (Though as others have remarked,
| there's a different objective at play here.)
| pxc wrote:
| Wym? SUSE was owned by Novell, not SCO. Evil SCO stabbed
| Novell and SUSE in the back.
| ghaff wrote:
| SUSE was bought by Novell later. Per Wikipedia:
|
| "United Linux was an attempt by a consortium of Linux
| distributors to create a common base distribution for
| enterprise use, so as to minimize duplication of
| engineering effort and form an effective competitor to Red
| Hat. The founding members of United Linux were SUSE,
| Turbolinux, Conectiva (now merged with MandrakeSoft to form
| Mandriva) and Caldera International (later renamed to The
| SCO Group). The consortium was announced on May 30, 2002.
| The end of the project was announced on January 22, 2004."
|
| It never really worked from a business perspective but
| Caldera becoming faux-SCO was pretty much the final straw.
| infamouscow wrote:
| I wish they went for a 501(c)3 non-profit, rather than a 501(c)6
| trade organization.
|
| The incentives between these two structures make a world of
| difference.
| verdverm wrote:
| can you elaborate?
| bragr wrote:
| Just skimming the regulations, I don't believe that it would
| qualify as a 501(c)3 as they don't receive "broad public
| support" [1] whereas the criteria for a 501(c)6 match exactly
| with their goals. Additionally the (c)6 allows for political
| activity related to the purpose of the organization, which
| seems like a good ability given the current intersection of
| politics, regulation, and tech. [2]
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by "incentives". Perhaps you could
| elaborate.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization#Types
|
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Contributi...
| vulcan01 wrote:
| I started a 501(c)(3) with some friends. It didn't require
| broad public support, just that we intended to grow to such a
| point.
|
| (I'm not sure exactly what the current support is like; I
| left the board over a year ago. I think it's around 10 folks
| that donate somewhat regularly.)
|
| Certainly the political activity provision of 501(c)(6)s are
| beneficial for this association, and I guess they'd have more
| scrutiny as three large companies instead of a few high
| schoolers.
| nhanlon wrote:
| It's incredibly difficult (read: impossible) for this type of
| organization to be a true 501(c)3.
| eraser215 wrote:
| Oracle, SUSE, and Greg Kurtzer have zero interest in _not_
| profiting from this.
| mfer wrote:
| You will find that many of the open source backing non-profits
| are trade organizations. Some notable examples:
|
| - The Linux Foundation (which includes the CNCF and OpenJS
| Foundation)
|
| - Rust Foundation
|
| - Bytecode Alliance
|
| I don't mean to provide an opinion on incentives (and they are
| different as the parent suggests). I just mean to share that
| trade organizations are already common.
|
| Disclaimer: I work for SUSE but not on OpenELA. I am also a
| maintainer of CNCF projects and on the CNCF TOC.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Small nit but technically OpenJS is a separate 501c6 that is
| currently managed by the LF, they're not "underneath" the LF
| in the same way that CNCF is. Not sure why that's the case,
| probably just historical reasons since they were independent
| for a long time beforehand? Doesn't seem to change much
| operationally as they have the normal C6 structure with
| corporate members, etc.
| pelasaco wrote:
| As openSUSE user, the only answers that I care from SUSE are:
|
| - Are you going to kill Leap and Tumbleweed?
|
| - Are you going to handle the "community" as you do with the
| openSUSE community?
| linuxftw wrote:
| Part of the justification at the time for getting rid of CentOS
| proper in favor of CentOS "Stream" was that poor Red Hat was
| doing all the work and spending all the cash in support of
| CentOS. Red Hat even went as far to say that the CentOS
| leadership (board?) was in full support.
|
| Red Hat never allowed CentOS to have any kind of election. It was
| never a community driven project after Red Hat bought it.
|
| So, very interesting to see these companies banding together to
| give us back CentOS by another name. It will be interesting to
| see what Rocky and Alma do.
| [deleted]
| gangohango wrote:
| CIQ _is_ rocky.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Not true. Rocky Linux is a Rocky Enterprise Software
| Foundation project. And on https://www.resf.org, you can see
| that RESF is backed by lots more folks than just CIQ.
| linuxftw wrote:
| I was thinking one of the distros was backed by CIQ, but I
| couldn't remember which, thanks.
| nhanlon wrote:
| CIQ is a sponsor of Rocky (and my employer, to be
| transparent) - but they do not have a say over what Rocky
| does.
| nhanlon wrote:
| We (RESF/Rocky) are _not_ CIQ, and do not take direction from
| CIQ.
|
| End of story.
| gareim wrote:
| I knew you'd show up and say this. CIQ's CEO claims to have
| founded Rocky and is the current president of RESF, is
| Rocky's most prominent sponsor, and Rocky's recent moves
| have been in the same direction that CIQ requires in order
| to survive. Regardless of direct control or not, Rocky's
| financial incentives align with CIQ's.
|
| As you so point out your bias, it would be really nice if
| you didn't speak on behalf of your employer and let others
| make their own conclusions without hearing from those
| biased.
| davidw wrote:
| Hrm. Just going to keep sticking with Debian and Ubuntu like I've
| been doing since ... wow, 1997.
| BossingAround wrote:
| For personal and small business needs, you can stick to
| whatever you'd like, even Arch Linux if that's your poison.
| That's not the aim of the announcement though.
| davidw wrote:
| It's my point though: rather than navigate between what RH is
| doing and what Oracle is doing, I'll just stick with a solid
| open source distribution. Lindy effect and all...
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server
| OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing
| enterprise distros?
|
| I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if
| I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that
| RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is
| also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora
| Server. And if I believed RH was being intentionally hostile, why
| would I support them at all and not go with a completely
| unrelated distro like SUSE?
| josephcsible wrote:
| > If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free.
|
| You can't get RHEL for free.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Are you sure?
|
| Things I read online say it's free, including
| https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download
|
| As I understand, the only costs with RHEL include using it
| across a large number of machines in enterprise, and customer
| support. Someone using it on a few machines in a home lab
| should be fine I imagine?
| hrrsn wrote:
| You can sign up for the developer license and install it on
| up to 16 machines, after that you need to pay
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are
| this controversial :p
|
| 16 machines is more devices than I have in my house, and
| enterprise seems like they can just pay for RHEL. I'm
| also betting there's not some thorough verification
| process that would prevent you from running RHEL free on
| more than 16 machines (seems almost too easy, but just
| make multiple free accounts per-16 machines? RH I'm sure
| would be happier to have people running RHEL at all than
| intentionally seeking out free license violators)
| kobalsky wrote:
| > Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are
| this controversial :p
|
| 16 licenses is the proverbial tip.
|
| we know what happens next.
| doubled112 wrote:
| 16 devices doesn't cover everything I have at home, and
| managing the license(s) isn't something I'm looking to
| do.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| So you'd rather use some random fork of RHEL?
| doubled112 wrote:
| For personal use I use Debian almost exclusively.
| Laptops, desktops, servers, VMs, Raspberry Pis, all of
| it.
|
| Pre-Stream CentOS was never my preference, but I did
| spend some time running it to learn the RHEL way. The
| free licenses would fill that gap.
|
| At work we run RHEL where we needed support and Alma
| where we don't. It was chosen for me. I'm watching to see
| how this plays out, but not incredibly concerned.
| rascul wrote:
| > up to 16 machines
|
| Does that include virtual machines?
| pincoballino wrote:
| It seems possible:
| https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-
| hat-... > "10. How many Red Hat Enterprise Linux
| entitlements are included in the no-cost Red Hat
| Developer Subscription for Individuals?"
|
| "The no-cost Red Hat Developer Subscription for
| Individuals grants the ability to install Red Hat [...]
| on 16 physical or virtual nodes"
| eraser215 wrote:
| Yes you can.
|
| https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-
| enterpri...
| anyoneamous wrote:
| This falls under the heading of "technically correct" - in
| the sense that the limit is high enough for people to make
| the argument you are, and yet too low for most enterprise
| use-cases. Worse, the offer could be withdrawn at any time.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| If you're enterprise with more than 16 machines, you can
| and should probably be paying for RHEL.
|
| What I'm not understanding is why people need to use RHEL
| and would resort to free random forks of it, instead of
| just using CentOS Stream or Fedora that are basically the
| same thing, actually from RH, and 100% free. RHEL is not
| that special.
| anyoneamous wrote:
| > can and should probably be paying for RHEL.
|
| I'm on the fence about that. I wish people were more
| willing to financially support open-source development,
| but I've worked with dozens of customers using RHEL over
| the last 10 years and never seen a single one of them
| open a support request - on that basis I can see why
| people feel that the price is too high. When the options
| are "get gouged" or "be labelled a freeloader", the
| outcome is pretty obvious.
|
| > just using CentOS Stream or Fedora
|
| I think the rise of free alternatives (Amazon Linux) and
| a DevOps-style mindset (no patching, just burn it down
| and redeploy when updates are needed) are exactly what
| has motivated this squeeze - RHEL is losing relevance in
| a lot of places, so RH/IBM are left with fewer potential
| customers and so just end up squeezing them harder.
| Dulat_Akan wrote:
| Oh big stones companies moving to the Talent side of Open Source
| developers. Good but needed to act little bit earlier. Yes better
| late then never)
| pygar wrote:
| Probably a dumb question, as I'm not really on the enterprise
| side of Linux but: Isn't Canonical in the same business as Red
| Hat? Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged
| "freeloaders"?
|
| Come to think of it, why is SUSE considered as a serious
| replacement for RHEL and not Ubuntu?
| creatonez wrote:
| > Come to think of it, why is SUSE considered as a serious
| replacement for RHEL and not Ubuntu?
|
| SLES and RHEL are _somewhat_ similar, in that they both use the
| RPM package format, and they both have a 10 year support
| lifecycle. They are not entirely compatible though. They also
| make management software that is supposed to be as
| interoperable as possible with competitor distributions.
|
| Anyways, last month SUSE announced they would be making an
| actual RHEL fork, so that's the real reason they are joining
| this new partnership -- it's not related to SLES, but a new
| distro they are making.
|
| As for Ubuntu -- it _is_ often touted as an alternative to
| RHEL. However, people don 't like the weird ways in which
| Ubuntu diverges from the rest of the Linux community (Snap,
| LXD, ufw, etc.), so some attention is diverted towards Debian
| and RHEL, which are more focused on packaging software that is
| already proven. Red Hat does their innovation in Fedora, waits
| a few years to see if it catches on, then implements it in
| RHEL. This tends to have a greater degree of success than
| pushing it suddenly on users like Ubuntu does.
| dralley wrote:
| >Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged
| "freeloaders"?
|
| I don't think there are any corporate entities reselling a
| rebuilt Ubuntu
| loph wrote:
| Simply put, I'm not using anything with 0racle's name on it.
|
| Free software from 0racle? There are gonna be strings attached...
| to lawyers.
| creatonez wrote:
| Oracle Linux, surprisingly, is no strings attached. The
| licensing is straightforward GPL, the download pages are freely
| accessible.
|
| In this case, it might be Oracle's lawyers preventing them from
| being aggressive, because they wouldn't fare well trying to
| challenge Red Hat. If they screw up their treading-lightly
| strategy, or if they get into legal trouble, there could no
| longer be a suitable operating system to run Oracle Database
| on.
| toyg wrote:
| It's because they are the underdog, in no position to impose
| anything. They do the work because they need it for strategic
| reasons, so they might as well give it away for goodwill.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| How is IBM better than Oracle?
| throw16180339 wrote:
| IBM hasn't tried to establish that APIs are copyrightable;
| Oracle has.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_.
| ...
| josefx wrote:
| How does the modern web browse itself without JavaScript?
| Oracle still has the trademark on that.
| SahAssar wrote:
| Are you tying to make 0racle the new Micro$oft/M$? Whats the
| zero supposed to represent?
| ftaghn wrote:
| As much as people may hate oracle, they employ significant
| contributors to the Linux kernel.
| https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/
|
| Many in very important subsystems. The XFS maintainer (who just
| recently stepped down from this role) and contributor Darrick
| Wong works for Oracle. Meanwhile, btrfs is the creation of
| Chris Mason, who worked there until 2012. Modern filesystems on
| linux owe a decent debt to Oracle. Good luck running an Oracle-
| free linux.
|
| I often find it interesting when people imply the company is
| freeloading for having chosen the path of making an RHEL clone.
| They cloned RHEL because an unhealthy, dependent ecosystem was
| built around the one, singular linux distribution, not because
| they are unwilling to fund work.
|
| Giving some serious competition to Red Hat can only be a good
| thing.
| dralley wrote:
| > They cloned RHEL because an unhealthy, dependent ecosystem
| was built around the one, singular linux distribution, not
| because they are unwilling to fund work.
|
| They cloned RHEL to spite Red Hat for the JBoss acquisition
| in the mid-2000s.
| axus wrote:
| Hopefully that OpenELA uses MariaDB and not MySQL.
| raverbashing wrote:
| So what's the story again? You either die a hero or you live
| enough to see yourself becoming the villain?
|
| And now even Oracle is looking like the reasonable player?
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| I like this solution way much better. Now the only player that's
| missing here is Almalinux. Maybe it's not too late to make a
| U-turn and join this new group so that Redhat alone can be
| responsible for contributing to RHEL as intended.
| eraser215 wrote:
| How is red hat being the only contributor a good thing?
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| It may not be a good thing to anyone looking at this whole
| mess but it's clearly what Red Hat wants. After all, their VP
| did lament that they were doing all this work for "free" just
| so that the other enterprises can rebuild their product.
| sproketboy wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| verdverm wrote:
| Is this IBM|RedHat's Elasticsearch vs Opensearch moment?
| nazgulsenpai wrote:
| Funny you mention that as Oracle has also "migrated" everything
| to OpenSearch. They're really big proponents of (other
| people's) free and open-source software!
| jrpelkonen wrote:
| Interesting observation. I recently watched a documentary about
| Compaq, and this saga reminds me of a previous time when IBM
| tried to put the genie back in the bottle with MicroChannel
| architecture. Let's see if they fare any better this time
| mongol wrote:
| Ah, MicroChannel. The reason I was late into Linux. My PC was
| a PS/2 Model 70. Was only when I bought a Pentium 75 PC that
| I could join the party.
| korpsey wrote:
| Re-United Linux!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-10 23:00 UTC)