Linux

7654 readers

292 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Should we be wary of Red Hat? (lemmy.cafe)

submitted 21 hours ago by propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe to c/linux@programming.dev

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

They were bought by IBM a few years back, but even aside from that they’re a corporation and they care about making money above all else.

It looks like Red Hat is doing its damnedest to consolidate as much power for themselves within the Linux ecosystem.

I don’t think the incessant Fedora shilling is unrelated.

It seems like there isn’t much criticism of the company or their tactics, and I’m curious if any of you think that should change.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Fuck Rocky. They are a leech on open source. They break user agreements to get at Red Hat source and don't contribute upstream. Use Alma, they actually work with the community and contribute upstream.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, but why is there even an agreement required to access to source to something, uh, open source?

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Because CIQ, the company that bankrolls Rocky, was poaching Red Hat customers. They were hiring Red Hat sales people, then using their contacts to swoop in and drastically undercut Red Hat because they don't do any engineering. It is an effort to stop leeches like CIQ/Rocky.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see the problem with that. Red Hat is bankrolled by IBM. I don't have any qualms about them facing competition, even underhanded competition which I don't think this is. Contributing to open source doesn't and shouldn't guarantee financial compensation, customers, whatever.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

So, you're okay with one company taking another company's work, contributing nothing to it themselves, then hiring company A's employees, and finally taking company A's customers? Not even Oracle was slimy enough to do that.

IBM does not back roll Red Hat. Red Hat acts and reports independently of IBM.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I guess you consider the parts of open source that are contributed to be owned by the contributors? I don't think that's how open source works nor how it should work.

IBM doesn't bankroll Red Hat? Buddy, IBM owns Red Hat https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-landmark-acquisition-red-hat-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Buddy, I know IBM owns them. I also know that Red Hat is basically the only thing making IBM money. Look at the financials a little more closely.

I guess you consider the parts of open source that are contributed to be owned by the contributors?

What would that have to do with anything? That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm against companies that take an open source project to profit off of it without making any contributions to the community. CIQ and Canonical to a lesser extent. I have no issues with people like Red Hat, SUSE, Alma, etc...

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm against

I'm not. I don't think we're going to change each other's mind, so have a good one.