They shifted to a paid subscription model and fucked over any goodwill they had. Yeah they were major contributors to open source, but we gave them clemency because we didn’t think they’d position themselves to fuck us over so eagerly. Had we known, we wouldn’t have made so many downstream distros from them.
When was RHEL non-sub? I’m guessing you’re thinking of the code availability change, or maybe centos? Or are you literally thinking of the RH and not RHEL?
Yeah they were major contributors to open source
Still are.
Had we known, we wouldn’t have made so many downstream distros from them.
I remember rocky, alma, oracle, and Amazon. 2 of those are now upstream, 2 are still downstream (and only 1 wasn’t corpo backed).
Alternatively they might not have made that change if people weren’t literally repacking their product and trying to steal their market share by giving it away for free with cheaper enterprise support. Imagine telling that to a room of rich shareholders.
You can’t jump on an already successful FOSS product, make large changes to it under an extremely copy-left license free for all to use, and then turn around and claim that people are stealing your lunch.
In the world of business where everyone claims to have bootstrapped their products out of thin air? Sure, use that Looney tunes logic.
Those changes were heartily welcome; no other company that I know of has believed in Linux so strongly and so early on than RedHat. But if they were doing it all for financial reasons, (as any company would, as there was definite money to be made in a Windows alternative for enterprise systems), then either they were blind to the idea that they would empower any future competitors who could fork off their contributions, or deaf to the notion of what FOSS ultimately was and sought to undermine/control it in the long-run.
I’m bitter about RedHat because I wonder now if the second option was the plan all along.
What do you have against redhat.com?
They shifted to a paid subscription model and fucked over any goodwill they had. Yeah they were major contributors to open source, but we gave them clemency because we didn’t think they’d position themselves to fuck us over so eagerly. Had we known, we wouldn’t have made so many downstream distros from them.
When was RHEL non-sub? I’m guessing you’re thinking of the code availability change, or maybe centos? Or are you literally thinking of the RH and not RHEL?
Still are.
I remember rocky, alma, oracle, and Amazon. 2 of those are now upstream, 2 are still downstream (and only 1 wasn’t corpo backed).
Alternatively they might not have made that change if people weren’t literally repacking their product and trying to steal their market share by giving it away for free with cheaper enterprise support. Imagine telling that to a room of rich shareholders.
You can’t jump on an already successful FOSS product, make large changes to it under an extremely copy-left license free for all to use, and then turn around and claim that people are stealing your lunch.
In the world of business where everyone claims to have bootstrapped their products out of thin air? Sure, use that Looney tunes logic.
I agree with you, but we aren’t corpo assholes. And those changes were allowed under that extremely copy-left license.
Those changes were heartily welcome; no other company that I know of has believed in Linux so strongly and so early on than RedHat. But if they were doing it all for financial reasons, (as any company would, as there was definite money to be made in a Windows alternative for enterprise systems), then either they were blind to the idea that they would empower any future competitors who could fork off their contributions, or deaf to the notion of what FOSS ultimately was and sought to undermine/control it in the long-run.
I’m bitter about RedHat because I wonder now if the second option was the plan all along.
Not that red hat cult, the other one. 😂
This one? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=red+hat+cult
I really don’t get it.
MAGA cult