Who's surprised? IBM is owned 8% by Blackrock so this shouldn't surprise anybody.
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
293 points (96.5% liked)
Linux
56078 readers
298 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Users looking to run an EL-like linux that pre-dates RedHat's derivation and meddling will want to look at PCLinuxOS .
Its pedigree is mageia, so Mandrake and Conectiva.
While it's got a horrifically bad PXE install, and while that means Vagrants and templates are ghetto and thin on the ground, it's otherwise a very fine OS with a wide compatibility range that RH couldn't even match with this AppStream bullshit (ohai, /etc/alternatives).
IBM: We poured money and resources into Linux before 99% of the business world had even heard of it. We helped make it great. Why shouldn't we require a return on that investment?
PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I think IBM/RH is bone-headed as heck and are now inexcusable violators of the GPL, and other licenses.
I knew they were going to *break* RH and make it something abominable.
But they *were* there at the very beginning of the 2000s, promoting Linux heavily. (Not altruistically, of course)
This is not a violation of the GPL. They are allowed to charge for access to the source. If you provide binaries/images to a customer, you also must provide source. However, anyone who doesn't pay isn't entitled to it.
However, this is still a total bonehead move.
But anyone with access to source code licensed under GPL can legally redistribute said source code. One of the fundamental freedoms is that if you are given GPL-licensed source code, you can modify and redistribute it as much as you like.
I think the real problem might be that some of the work from Red Hat doesn't fall under the GPL, hence this wouldn't apply, but I'm not sure.
Or what if they only distribute it to companies that sign an agreement not to redistribute? Then they have the right to redistribute according to the GPL, but if they do, Red Hat will kick them out. This would seem like a way to circumvent the fundamental ideas behind the GPL and free software. If they do this, I can no longer be supportive of Red Hat in any way, and will likely have to distro-hop away from Fedora due to this misalignment of ideology.
what if they only distribute it to companies that sign an agreement not to redistribute?
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
I know this isn't related but: Why do I see a completely different set of comments here when I'm logged in, as opposed to when I'm not?
Could be bc of how you set sorting comments in your account vs guest's default.
I’ve noticed much better post syncing on 0.18. 0.17.4 still relies websocket for syncing post comments and was constantly behind. I’m not mostly seeing that on instances that haven’t quite upgraded yet.
Though if I was running a larger instance i probably wouldn’t upgrade quite yet until ironing out any kinks in a non-prod.
Sometimes comments won't load for the post, it loads the comments for the last post you visited. Refreshing tends to fix it
I noticed this when I set my language settings in my lemmy profile.
Are there any other distros that are foss and provide optional enterprise support? Enterprises deploy distros that offer guarantees, warranties, and compliance measures to ensure stability, reliability, and legal compliance. If I'd build a company, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a distro that I can upgrade to an enterprise version when that's necessary. But... now?
I suppose there's Ubuntu and SLES.
I believe opensuse fits your description.
Fuck, I really hope this doesn't turn the tides for other Red Hat projects.
Not even my Linux distros can escape the enshittiness. WTF man.
I use Fedora, but I'm very uneasy with the fact that they are married to Red Hat. If things go south for Fedora, I hope a community driven fork can survive if not Fedora itself.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's ultimately because of capital. Capital controls resource allocation, so any project that requires resources will have to align with capital interests