They’re a pretty big contributor to Linux, so even if you don’t see their work you’re probably using it anyway. lwn.net/Articles/915435/
added value that cannot be fulfilled by independent experts or FOSS community
Wrong question IMO. It’s more relevant to ask “without Red Hat, would independent experts or the FOSS community have added the same value?”. Sure, it’s possible that Red Hat has some highly skilled developers that possess unique skills required for their contributions, but in general contributing to FOSS projects is more about willingness to spend large amounts of time and resources on something that doesn’t give you money in return.
Lots of large companies “could” have spent thousands of hours contributing to Linux, but unless they actually do it then it is irrelevant.
I decided to go with Da Vinci Resolve for video editing and I might migrate to something to replace Lightroom in future, can’t now, because I have all my Lightroom catalogues at work.
I mostly use photoshop to remove objects from photos, place in images rendered with blender and retouch them to look like they were part of the photo, I think Darktabke doesn’t have tools similar to healing brush and patch tools in photoshop. Although photoshop is working perfectly so far, it would be nice to find a native application that is up to the task. I haven’t really tried hard to look for linux alternative that can do that.
EDIT:
Wait, I just looked into it and there are such tools! Thank you for suggestion! I might try it!
I do not think systemd is bad, I (and personal preference here) much prefer it over the older style of init systems.
Quite frankly, one of the things that has always irked me about a portion of the Linux community is that as far as I know, a strength and selling point of Linux has always been the freedom of choice. And yet, people start wars over your choices. For example, I know at least on r/Linux if you were to make a post saying that you liked Snaps over Flatpaks you’d get torn to shreds over it. Wouldn’t matter what reasons you had either.
It is always something. Whether its about Arch vs other distros, Snaps vs Flatpak vs AppImage vs Traditional packaging, X11 vs Wayland, systemd vs Sys V/init.d, pulseaudio vs pipewire, etc.
I never understood why it mattered so much what someone ran on their own computer. Assuming they’re the only one using it, what is the big deal if they choose to run OpenRC, X11, Snaps, and Alsa?
And I get a bad feeling the next one is going to be immutable distros vs non-immutable distros, but I guess we’ll see.
It’s a massive question, and I think quite a lot of the argument comes from the fact that it depends what direction you’re answering it from.
As a user, do I like being able to just systemctl enable --now whatever.service , and have a nice overview of ‘how’s my computer’ in systemctl status ? Yes, that’s a big step up from symlinking run levels and other nonsense, much easier.
As an administrator, do I like having services, mounts and timers all managed in one way? Yes, that is very nice - can do more with less, and have to spend less time hunting for where things are configured. Do I think that the configuration files for these are a fucking mess of ‘just keep adding new features in’ and the override system is lunacy? Also yes.
As a developer trying to do post-mortem debugging, who just wants all the logs in front of him for some server that’s gone wrong somehow, which I often have to request via an insane daisy-chain of emails and ‘Salesforce nonsense that our tech support use’ from our often fairly non-technical end users, on some server that I’ve no other access to? No, I do not find having logs spread between /var/log and journalctl (and various CloudFormation logs in a web console) makes my life easier. I would be pleased if that got sorted out.
Nah, it’s fine. Boot times are considerably faster than sys.v in most cases, and it has a huge amount of functionality. Most people I work with have adopted it and much prefer it to the old init.d and sys.v systems.
People’s problem with systemd (and there are fewer people strongly against it than before) seem to break down into two groups:
They were happy with sys.v and didn’t like change. Some were unhappy with how distros adopted it. (The debian wars in particular were really quite vicious)
It does too much. systemd is modular, but even so does break one of the core linux tenets - “do one thing well”. Despite the modularity, it’s easy to see it as monolithic.
But regardless of feelings, systemd has achieved what it set out to do and is the defacto choice for the vast majority of distros, and they adopted it because it’s better. Nobody really cares if a user tries to make a point by not using it any more, they’re just isolating themselves. The battle was fought and systemd won it.
How so? I like the systemctl syntax more, since it allows for starting/stopping many units at once. It also supports a much richer set of commands than service ever did.
it just feels like a manager decided the command should read like english, made the decision then went back to never entering a command again in the terminal again. every day, i get to decide, should i enter “systemctl restart problem_service” all again or hit up on the keyboard and and hold back, then rewrite over the previous status command. bit less work if the status/stop/start/restart bit was on the end like it used to be.
In BASH ALT+T will swap the last white spaced separated strings… It’s still annoying but makes “systemctl problem_server start/status/restart” a bit easier. CTRL+W will clear the current string to whitespace, so up arrow, ALT+T, CTRL+W, status, ALT+T, Enter.
One of my biggest problems with critics of systemd is that a lot of the same people who make that second point also argue against wayland adoption when xorg does the exact same thing as systemd. It makes me feel like they’re just grumpy stubborn old Linux nerds from the 90s who just hate anything that’s not what they learned Linux with.
Which is sad, because honestly I think it’s kind of not great that an unnecessarily massive project has gained such an overwhelming share of users when the vast majority of those users don’t need or use most of what it does. Yeah, the init systems from before systemd sucked, but modern alternatives like runit or openrc work really well. Unfortunately they get poorly supported because everyone just assumes you have systemd. I don’t like the lack of diversity. I think it’s a problem that any init system “won”.
Unfortunately they get poorly supported because everyone just assumes you have systemd.
No, they get poorly supported because they were a pain to support even before systemd ever showed up. I for one was extremely tired of writing the same shit over and over again in every init script and then going through the tedious process of porting the script to every platform for minor idiosyncrasies of the various distros (start-stop-daemon available or not was one I remember, the general bash/GNU vs. BSD stuff you get with any script was another) from 10 year old RHEL to modern ones.
Xorg, or X11, “used to” do the “minimum necessary” for a remote display system… in the 80s. Graphics tech has changed A LOT in the last 40 years, with most of the stuff getting offloaded to GPUs, so the whole X11 protocol became more and more bloated as it kept getting new and optional features without dropping backwards compatibility.
The point against Wayland, was dropping support for remote displays, while kind of having an existential crysis for several years during which it didn’t know what it wanted to become. Hopefully that’s clear now.
OpenRC and runit are indeed working alternatives, but OpenRC is kind of a hack over init.rd, while runit relies a bit too much on storing all its status in the filesystem. Systemd has a cleaner approach and a more flexible service configuration.
Arguably, Systemd does exactly that: orchestrate the parallel starting of services, and do it well.
The problem with init.d and sys.v is they were not designed for multi-core systems where multiple services can start at once, and had no concept of which service depended on which, other than a lineal “this before that”. Over the years, they got extended with very dirty hacks and tons of support functions that were not consistent between distributions, and still barely functional.
Systemd cleaned all of that up, added parallel starting taking into account service dependencies, which meant adding an enhanced journaling system to pull status responses from multiple services at once, same for pulling device updates, and security and isolation configs.
It’s really the minimum that can be done (well) for a parallel start system.
systemd is modular, but even so does break one of the core linux tenets - “do one thing well”.
Linux itself (i.e. the kernel) breaks the hell out of that so-called core tenet. Have you looked at make menuconfig at any point? There’s everything but the kitchen sink in there.
Apart from RHEL, RedHat contributes to hundreds of FOSS projects and hires a lot of FOSS devs. So their contribution in progressing the desktop linux is huge. You can see the contributions to the various project here: www.redhat.com/en/about/…/contributions
Believe it or not corporates play a big role in making Linux what it is and their enshittification is bad for Linux ecosystem.
RedHat contributes to hundreds of FOSS projects and hires a lot of FOSS devs.
They don’t do this because they like the idea of free software (as recently proven - again) but because of thy need the software and doing it like this is the easiest way.
corporates play a big role in making Linux what it is
Same with Microsoft, for example. I’m still not going to use any of their software just because they support FOSS they need because it’s easier this way.
Of course they need the software and that’s why they contribute to make it better. That’s how most of the FOSS development works anyway. People have an ‘itch’ to fix the issues or add a feature and they do it and the license makes sure that others benefit from that itch.
I have hosed so many installs over the past 20 or so years that it’s impossible for me to guess a number. It’s part of the learning process. Just keep at it and you’ll get there.
Linus has a great mind for creating and managing a Linux kernel, but like actors and others he has no qualifications for his other opinions that nobody asked for. And instead of making a lucid argument, he name calls and is rude and actually makes a fool of himself. And guns are just a tool that any law abiding citizen should be able to purchase, and I’ve used one to defend myself when my front door was kicked in at 4:30am. With our wicked drug addicted society becoming more and more lawless, the need for personal firearms has never been greater. And we already have a ton of gun regulations, background checks…
You can’t build your own distro on the backs of upstream’s work, and then refuse to do the same with downstream. Even if you don’t see any value in it, someone does, it’s not up to you to decide that, or you have missed the point of open source entirely
That’s what companies like Microsoft do, or what Apple does: they prevent competitors from even existing, or from being as good.
This is not a matter of “seeing” value in what Alma and Rocky do, because their value is plainly apparent to anyone, undoubtedly including Red Hat: they’re basically 1:1 RHEL clones, except you don’t have to pay Red Hat to use them. It should also be plainly apparent to anyone why Red Hat would consider this a problem for their business; their main product is the effort that goes into producing and maintaining RHEL, so it is only logical that they would want to maintain as much exclusivity as possible on that product.
Alma and Rocky are competitors to RHEL in much the same way piracy scene groups are competitors to game publishers. It is obviously not a fair competition.
And the real problem isn’t really how Alma or Rocky will survive, they’ll have more work to do, but they’ll manage with the CentOS Stream code. The real issue is that acting like that will in the end, harm Red Hat’s business.
[snip]
And Red Hat flat out lying about how they’ll handle things in the future makes them utterly untrustworthy for businesses: are you going to base your business decision on what a company said today, when they already screwed you over twice? No.
No it doesn’t. Red Hat hasn’t screwed over their customers, they’ve screwed over a bunch of people who aren’t their customers. Why would any paying RHEL customer feel screwed over by this?
I work as a Linux sysadmin for a university, we’re paying for a full RedHat site license with all the goodies, and we certainly feel royally screwed over by this.
Not every single piece of software we run is a RedHat developed/sanctioned thing, and the removal of a guaranteed bug-compatible development platform for the people building those pieces of software - without jumping through hoops or limiting development efficiency - mean that we can no longer guarantee that core pieces of our infrastructure software will remain available for our RHEL installs. Not to mention course IT, where things are even worse in that regard. Lots of such software is already developed/tested/packaged on Alma/Rocky, and if they start diverging from being RHEL bug-compatible - which is very likely with this change - then we’re going to either have to switch away from RHEL - and the paid support, or lose support from the pieces of software.
We’re probably going to have to move a bunch more of our ~1.4k systems off of RHEL and onto things like SUSE, Debian, etc in the near future, just so that we’re ready for when shit really hit the fan.
Isn’t there a free developer license for exactly that?
Also: it is an exceptionally bad idea to target exactly one Linux distribution and version. Any software should be sufficiently well tested on a wider range of distributions.
I understand the argument, but consider that Red Hat is a huge contributor to more than just RHEL. The biggest contributors to the projects you know and love like Libreoffice, gnome, and Wayland are from people being payed by companies like red hat. I can understand why people disagree with their choice, but when this company profits, they don’t just make RHEL better and support everything dependent on it, they make Linux software better.
but consider that Red Hat is a huge contributor to more than just RHEL. The biggest contributors to the projects you know and love like Libreoffice, gnome, and Wayland are from people being payed by companies like red hat. I can understand why people disagree with their choice, but when this company profits, they don’t just make RHEL better and support everything dependent on it, they make Linux software better.
which would indicate that you don’t understand the argument
I think it’s more constructive and conducive of insightful discussion if you elaborate why you think this person doesn’t understand the argument, rather than just stating as much as if your statement is true without justification.
They are also a huge cause of extra work for the rest of the Linux ecosystem with their ancient software versions in RHEL. And the worst of it, everything you learn by doing work on those ancient versions is useless knowledge.
If you can’t switch, wait until Fedora is forked to a new project, which is inevitable at this point given how dependent Fedora is on Red Hat for governance (source: docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/), and it seems that Red Hat no longer wants Fedora (source: recent pivoting away from the community, and laying off the Fedora project lead in May and terminating the position).
I expect within a few years, you will be able to just change repositories and a signing key, and load whatever community-based Freedora replaces it.
I would avoid openSUSE which just wants to be another Red Hat (Aeon is just a shitty Silverblue and the project lead hates KDE) and SuSE in general has been hostile towards free software in the past and will likely do so again if they had to choose.
Arch, Debian, EndeavourOS, Solus, NixOS are community driven and unlikely to have some kind of corporate/hostile takeover.
Seconding Endeavour - Gives you all the benefits of Arch (the wiki, the freakin AUR) without so much of the… Assembly required part. They give you a desktop, a web browser and a firewall and you’re off to the races. A perfect in between, IMO.
About fifteen years ago, Microsoft felt threatened by Linux’s growing market share, and decided to team up with/outright buy patent trolls and use the new portfolio of around 230 patents to claim that the Linux distributions were infringing on Microsoft’s intellectual property and potentially sue them.
As Red Hat and other FOSS companies entrenched in their positions and geared up for a long and expensive legal fight, SuSE saw an opportunity to displace Red Hat, and threw everybody under the bus by saying something like, “Yes, Linux absolutely infringes on Microsoft patents. We will pay you for using your IP if you shield us from litigation.”
So that threw out the entire argument that Linux did not infringe on Microsoft patents because you had the second biggest Linux company saying it was true and the right thing to do was to pay Microsoft for all of their wonderful contributions. So Microsoft did this kind of mobster thing where they let SuSE pay them for “protection” from lawsuit, and then used this as precedent that the other Linux distributors weren’t playing fairly unless they also paid for patent use. And SuSE hoped that this would result in only Novell/SuSE being the legal Linux to buy in the market and everybody would run to them with open arms. Kind of a dick move.
This emboldened Microsoft, and resulted in lawsuits from Microsoft over things like, accessing the FAT filesystem from a Linux device (TomTom, at the time GPS device company) and is historically the reason that Nexus phones (which became Google Pixel phones) never came with SD card expansion (so they wouldn’t be accessing a FAT filesystem from Linux). So for the next half decade or so, Microsoft decided to just start suing everybody over patent infringement, and this is how the smartphone era was born and why it is really difficult to do things that would be obvious on a computer – smartphone designers had to invent new ways, even if obtuse, to get around patents.
In 2018 Microsoft decided that they needed Linux, and ended hostilities by giving the patent portfolio (now up to 60000+ patents) to a consortium of companies called Open Innovation or something like that, that was originally designed to share patents freely without litigation in response to Microsoft’s aggressive behavior a decade earlier.
I would avoid openSUSE which just wants to be another Red Hat (Aeon is just a shitty Silverblue and the project lead hates KDE) and SuSE in general has been hostile towards free software in the past and will likely do so again if they had to choose.
That’s disappointing to hear. openSuSE is pretty much my go to to recommend new people exactly because from my experience with it it is well maintained but not entangled too much in corporate bullshit. What have they done?
Fedora is 100% community supported. Red Hat is the primary sponsor and offers infrastructure and funding for the project, as well as full-time employees, but that’s the extent of the relationship. Red Hat doesn’t have decision-making powers. The project’s ideals force it to be open and transparent. So, if you are happy with it, stay with it. Red Hat only sponsors the Project. They don’t make decisions for the Project
I don’t think that Fedora will be affected by the changes RedHat has made with RHEL in the near future. It’s still a Community Distro. So there is no need to switch right now.
I’m using Silverblue currently, but i’m thinking about hopping to VanillaOS when they switch to Debian as a Base.
Fedora is 100% community distribution with Red Hat as a sponsor and large contributor. Fedora will always be 100% free and open-source and will never charge to make source-code available if that concerns people. This reflects heavily on their Freedom foundation: “[…] a completely free project that anyone can emulate or copy in whole or in part for their own purposes.”
Red Hat may have a grip on resources and funding for the project, but neither IBM nor Red Hat have ultimate decision-making powers.
linux
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.