this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
44 points (83.3% liked)

Linux

7654 readers
291 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
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gobbel2000@programming.dev 10 points 9 hours ago

Remember that in 2023 RedHat restricted access to the source code of RHEL packages, which had a big impact to lots of server distros. This article explains really well why that's problematic:

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/

[–] sudo@programming.dev 13 points 15 hours ago

Yeah but its pretty easy to avoid them. They survive on government contracts not community support. There's lots of better alternatives than Fedora.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 19 points 17 hours ago

Not really

It isn't a black and white thing. Redhat simply exists like anything else. I don't like everything they do but they also fund a ton of research and development. If Fedora ever becomes problematic people will just move. Ubuntu desktop used to be good but after it turned to shit many people moved.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 19 points 18 hours ago (9 children)

IBM sucks. They have bought up a bunch of small data centers and made them worse.

I'm still pissed about CentOS as well. Long live Rocky.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 18 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Alma is actually a real community distro. They deserve so much more support than Rocky does.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

TIL; though I moved my servers to Debian ... having the ability to sanely upgrade without a reinstall is a major plus.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 9 points 17 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 9 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 1 points 8 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 3 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 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 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 2 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 52 minutes ago

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...

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] not3ottersinacoat@lemmy.ca 11 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I'm wary of them and I refuse to use Fedora (because it's basically their testing bed) due to their support of the US military, in addition to the reasons you've mentioned. Also, I'm trying my damnedest to #BoycottUSA

I prefer LMDE. It doesn't check all my wants, but it finds a great balance and I don't feel like an unpaid tester.

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago

They make you sign into their support portal to view most of their documentation and download most of their software. That right there is a deal breaker for me because it violates the spirit of open source.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 16 points 19 hours ago

I'm all for Linux distributions run and owned by the community. With those we don't have to be afreaid of weird business decisions. Debian is a good example, and very democratic. But I believe several other distros are maintained by a community as well, including Arch, NixOS...

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 5 points 17 hours ago

There is not much criticism of Red Hat? What? In what universe? I never see the name Red Hat absent the army of detractors they attract.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 8 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (12 children)

It definitely makes me suspicious, considering they're a standard 'money above all else' company (though they're better at playing the long game than some other companies) operating in a fascist state. They don't seem to abuse their power much, yet, but that can change rather quickly.

I do think there are quite a few linux users and developers who are suspicious of Red Hat, they are a small-ish but pretty vocal minority. Suspicion of Red Hat was a major reason why systemd was so controversial.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I don't trust anyone with a red hat. Is Red Hat the MAGA of Linux?

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 3 points 3 hours ago

No that's canonical

load more comments
view more: next ›