Yes, but Red Hat is freeloading on all the stuff they put in the distro. Those authors released it under a licence that specifically encourages free-loading.

Freeloading? Isn't redhat freeloading by using the Linux Kernel? or by using the GNU user space? or by the countless other non-redhat programs that is bundled in RHEL? Microsoft can lock away their OS because they own everything end to end. RHEL does not get that privilege because they "freeload" a bunch of components to the RHEL distro. This argument just doesn't hold any merit in my eyes.

I would agree as far as that the Alma/Rocky/... move was not terribly surprising as a follow-up to them killing off Centos. However, this "freeloading" spin that they came up with doesn't really fly... It rather just highlights the problem with what Redhat is turning into.

@@TitusTechTalk Also - Red Hat Workstation - $299 per year, or $179 per year for what looks like the equivalent of an OEM licence. Windows 11 Pro - $199.99 retail for the life of the product [5 years after Windows 12 is released], OEM a lot cheaper. Why is Red Hat so much more expensive than Microsoft?

@katrinabryce Not to mention, Red Hat / IBM is in violation of the GPL for putting restrictions on redistributing GPL licensed that they didn't create. If you are a user of GPL code on your system, then according to the GPL, you cannot be restricted from exercising the right to redistribute the code under the same licenses, and you cannot stop others from doing the same. The FSF could sue Red Hat / IBM for GPL violations. Technically, so could Linus Torvalds or anybody whose GPL licensed software is included in RHEL. If Red Hat / IBM used a BSD base for their OS and only used BSD/MIT licensed code, or code they created that wasn't under a copyleft license, then this would be absolutely allowed. However, they cannot just pick and choose what terms of a license they want to follow, especially if Red Hat / IBM didn't create said software. Either they comply with the terms of the license or they stop using the software they don't want to comply with the license for. Otherwise, they can, should, and will be sued. Not to mention, by using the GNU coreutils and the Linux kernel, _they_ are freeloaders. Heck, even Valve has done more work for Linux than Red Hat has done for anything but themselves since 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if by 2030, Red Hat is nothing more than a footnote in the Linux history books and is absorbed into IBM.

@@amint6403 RHEL these days is continually rebased off of CentOS Stream, which itself is rebased off of Fedora. The only parts that don't trickle down are the enterprise-specific hot-fixes, which can hit RHEL first and be later added to CentOS / Fedora at RHEL's discretion.

Red Hat is the company, RHEL is the distro. Fedora is funded and primarily developed by red hat, like RHEL, as a testing ground. So it is upstream but not in the same way debian is for example the upstream of Ubuntu but it is independent from Canonical.

Tell that to RedHat 😂

@@ddangelobr i believe Red Hat would agree with me, but would mention, that is was built on top of Red Hat Linux and that they are the biggest sponsor and contributor to Fedora, where i agree

Fedora is primarily owned by RedHat, so doesn't matter

I went with mint but almost fedora. If this is what Redhat is doing, then they'll crap in fedora soon enough.

It's awesome but doesn't Red Hat kinda controls/own it? I would reaaaaaally love something like Fedora or Tumbleweed (up to date, rolling release-ish, POLISHED) but run by a non-profit like the one that runs Debian.

@@nimlouth Fedora decisions are transparent and democratic, without community and especially the way Fedora decision making works (elections, voting etc) it just wouldn't be as relevant in my view.

@@nimlouthRed Hat is separate from it and if there is any Red Hat employees on the Fedora board of governors they have to sign a contract stating they will make decisions of their own freewill and are not influenced by Red Hat/IBM.

Nonprofits (like Debian) can't sustain themselves with up-to-date package testing without monetizing their business processes somehow. Debian contributors are pretty "downstream" to where Fedora developers are in the dev production lifecycle.

Chris is a hack. Fedora is the best distro if you want up to date software but bleeding edge like Arch.

​@@GoatzombieBubbaWhat? Up to date but bleeding edge? What?

Fedora is ran by red hat though. They control Fedora just dont choose to exercise their power over it that much. But they easily could if they wanted to with no resistance.

That's what's probably going to happen to Fedora. I don't think Debian, Arch, or Gentoo will just die though, especially Debian thanks to a huge community and Arch because of Valve's work on Steam OS.

@@cameronbosch1213 no that’s not what I meant, I mean projects that red hat runs and that are packaged by those distros. Many huge projects come from them or are maintained by them with various degrees of community support. Think gnome, systemd…

@hansdampf2284 systemd is not the only init system. There are several other alternatives that could be used if Red Hat / IBM stopped supporting it. For example, Deuvan, Gentoo, and MX Linux all have other init systems by default. Not to mention, they cannot take away any current versions of systemd due to them being licensed under the GPL. Also, GNOME isn't the only DE. If GNOME suddenly stopped existing, I think COSMIC (the DE being built by System76) or KDE Plasma could get more attention. Not to mention some of the GNOME developers'... Self-centered comments and viewpoints about the project. I'm pretty sure KDE 3 was for a while considered the more stable distro, and it was only because of Ubuntu, Fedora (both of which shipped GNOME by default), and KDE 4 (which was a train wreck in terms of stability) that GNOME became the de facto Linux DE. Unfortunately, that led to Linux missing the mark when Windows 8 was released, as one year before that was when GNOME 3 was released, and to say it was even _more_ controversial than KDE 4 was an understatement, as at least KDE 4 didn't reinvent the UI and UX!

@@hansdampf2284 GNOME just received 1 million EUR of grant funds. For the near future at least, this project is safe, or I hope so. But your concerns are absolutely real. The big tech is involved deeply into the Linux world, and we don't know what's the next plug they'll pull off.

@@cameronbosch1213lol their fix bugs are so slow please don’t compare to like what RH. They are the first who fix the squid bug. First on Fedora than Centos and back-ported to RHEl8/9. I love how they act when is high vulnerability

Foundations are generally less prone to these things. For one, they aren't allowed to "take money out of the foundation". They MUST reinvest it (how strong these requirements are depends on country legislation). A lot of countries also have legislation about how much a foundation can "save up" for bad times. Second, they have founding principles. They are legally bound to uphold them and changing them retroactively (even as a founder) is harder than trying to make your politicians change a law the way you want it to as a normal citizen.

Small wonder what can be achieved when your priority is delivering a good service rather than the next quarterly report.

AMD Adrenalin aint available on Linux ?

@@nunyadambidniss nope... which is HIGHLY frustrating, I know AMD makes drivers for linux, so why is it so hard for them to make the software to go with it that can be installed separately? ..boggles my brain, lol

Keep using Fedora. Don't switch until it becomes a problem. Resist the hive-mind.

Chris Titus is a hack.

There's nothing wrong with Debian, it's what I'm using since I understood that Redhat is going to kill Rocky & Alma. I just wish Debian add good support for SE Linux though.

Probably OpenSUSE.

There’s still tons of Red Hat, Debian, and Ubuntu Server use. In my circles, I didn’t see people drop RHEL based distros. When CentOS 8 died, they went to Rocky or Alma. Learn on Debian and some RHEL-like distro. Ubuntu does a lot of hand holding so I don’t recommend learning on it. Also try out FreeBSD. I’ve seen more people pick up FreeBSD and FreeBSD-based products in my circles and I see a slow trend, or at least more garnered interest. I learned a lot about operating systems learning FreeBSD. And it made me a better Linux sysadmin I feel

Just use their developer license for free and enjoy their stable experience

@@illum1n4ti I did exactly that for a while. However, I'm not comfortable supporting a Linux distro that is closed source.

@@fossrules i see I won’t stop you. It’s your decision. You could still use centos stream I am still using RedHat for my vm servers and fedora for workstation. Maybe I am stubborn but I don’t like deb or apt packages. Don’t follow what people are doing now here on UKposts or media. Just do what you like to do Trust me without RH there is no kernel support or openjdk or gnome. the bug fixes with debian are slow as hell

"Everyone" is a very relative term in these circumstances. I can't remember the big hurray, at least from those of us that remember the closed nature of IBM.

@@roysigurdkarlsbakk3842 I don't remember a lot of cheering either, but there was more nail biting...

Canonical chads keep winning

I don’t recall that personally. History would tell anyone that a move like that is unlikely good on so many different fronts.

No. Most said it was bad.

While it's true that the BSDs are the "unsung heroes" of computing for what they've done and Linux has taken a LOT from them, I do not in anyway feel like I'm being held by Linux.

+1 for BSDs. Running pkg_add -u on OpenBSD -current as I type this

@@gwguxI think it depends on who you are. Linux has surely held me back in many ways on the server and desktop front. But the BSDs hold me back in other ways. Like, I can’t just plop proprietary commercial software like Steam or Spotify on my desktop, some GPU features are lacking too. Actually now that I think about it, aside from the GPU stuff, one big edge Linux has today is it gained commercial, proprietary software support

I love FreeBSD and use it as a daily driver, but I don't think it's going to be a perfect drop in replacement for a lot of people who are using Linux at home. I was able to setup my father and mother in law on Mint & Ubuntu respectively without them having much trouble (aside from the occasional problem if needing a special windows only software). I wouldn't ever dream of trying to get my family members to use FreeBSD. Driver compatibility a pain and getting it setup on a laptop can be very inconvenient, especially for a new *nix user. Not to mention the lack of support from 3 parties providing proprietary software. If Linux is the OS for people who like to to tinker on things, BSDs are for people who want to build their own garage first. That said I love it as a workstation OS. Developing on it is fantastic, especially when I want to test something in an isolated jail. It's an incredibly good OS, but you're going to have to put in the effort to learn

No, I prefer to use another Linux distro rather than lose usefulness

Except they are violating the GPL and they are ethically wrong in what they are doing. _People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones._

They aren't. You need to do some more research there. Also, it's a massive corporation; ethics are the last thing they'll care about. What did you expect? I am not personally a fan of this either, but it's not a major concern for ordinary people who don't even depend on RHEL stuff. That's like saying Windows users should riot because Apple's M1 silicon only works on Macs. It makes no sense.@@cameronbosch1213​

It depends on what GPL is used by whoever wrote that specific software etc. Linus himself has no issue with someone charging for their software they make. As well as them keeping it private. The words right from the horses mouth. The issue is people confuse Stallman and his cult with Linux. Same reason Linus put a lot of work in pushing as much of the toolkit made by GNU out of linux as possible. idk why people do not know their history. @@cameronbosch1213

@@cameronbosch1213 it's doubtful if they are actually violating the GPL saying "only source code access if you have a contract" is the same as "only source code (and program in general) if you give me 5 bucks" which even Stallman himself said is ok

@@kuhluhOG It _is_ allowed to release source code to customers only. What isn't allowed is preventing them from redistributing the source code under the same license.

It's both. IBM bought Red Hat, and then proceeded to ruin Red Hat slowly. This 💩 started in 2020 with the CentOS 8 embrassment and has only gotten worse. I would never trust Red Hat unless MAYBE IBM spins them off. But they'll probably just absorb the company into IBM proper rather than do that.

Nixos, arch\arco/endeavor, Linux mint, etc What do you want to use your system for?

@@simpan197 mostly programming and light gaming

​@@simpan197Yeah, that's the first step in figuring out what's best for you. Though if you're going to use EndeavourOS, I would wait until the new ISO launches, as it will be a significant change (and with the Linux kernel 6.6, because 6.5 in upstream Arch is pretty broken).

OpenSuse tumbleweed😁 also isn't fedora community based? red hat just sponsers them

@zyxiw OpenSUSE is community based. SUSE Linux Enterprise is commercial Linux based. And because Red Hat is *the biggest backer of Fedora,* given what they've been doing the past few years, that would concern me.

Systemd is Redhat as well... Doesn't excuse them for doing stupid shit though!

If I was forced to use that, I'd want to walk in front of a train like the creator did.

Best OS

...Yes? pick a distro (it really doesn't matter which one), flash the installer file to a USB flash drive, and boot from it. If you're trying to dual boot, remember to make a new partition for linux or you'll wipe the whole disk. When you're done, boot into the new install.

been using nix for 20 years, still hate vim. and your not changing grandma excel users off excel, its like 90% of office ladies work. and enterprises will just pay redhat or run whatever their larger it department wants to run. Most will pay redhat because its worth it for the real support.

@@msolace580 ​​⁠ I’m sorry that my joke didn’t get across. It wasn’t a serious statement. Although, I’m appalled that you hate vim you heretic. Repent.

@@msolace580 some places still use Office 2004 (yes, really) because too many employees threw a fit about the ribbon bar...

Debian isn't an enterprise-class distro.

@@JohnSmith-lk4xv Tell that to sysadmins.

They are still making decisions like systemd and x11 soon. U still following their roadmap.

Government may suck, but when corporations have that power they are a lot worse. FDR told you that, but I guess you forgot. The propaganda was composed to benefit people with a lot of money -- a big surprise.

The delays are typical.

This is typical Fedora's development process. It's a feature not a bug 😂

It's typical, and this time it has to do with bugs on Raspberry Pi from what I can tell.

yes its fine, fedora has been unphased by redhats sourcing. its still upstream

Lunduke went apeshit online. Reputation never recovered.

@@JohnSmith-lk4xvReally? Makes sense. He went antivaxxer apeshit on me, so I'm p sure I wasn't watching by that point.

nothing

I'm surprised that the profanity filter allowed that O-word to get through.

Lots of companies use it because Oracle offers enterprise support for Big Data projects, much like IBM and their offshoot Kyndryl.

If they are, it's because of incompetent management. They have extremely large multinational corporations and government Big Data projects under their helm. They aren't going anywhere so long as those clientele keep paying them.

Linux foundation pays Tolvalds... even if redhat died tomorrow it wouldn't change the development of the Linux kernel. It would impact other things like systemd, but alternatives exist that can be swapped in, but overall it would be a net negative if redhat does disappear.

@@TitusTechTalk IBM is the top sponsor of the Linux Foundation. Before that, it was Red Hat when they were independent. When the top sponsor of an organization stops funding it, you can be guaranteed that development will change when the rest are told they'd have to pick up the tab, or else staff are going to be cut. Ask any enterprise company if they could just "swap in" an alternate container package or a system manager into their enterprise-scale systems. They'd either crumble, or drop that platform like a wet rag if that was the kind of vendor support they got. There would have to be another major corporate software vendor willing to port in something that is completely compatible with the competition, and that just doesn't exist in the software world. Even on OSS platforms, the real corporate-level software is stuck behind incompatible licenses.

You're right. Give it a few years, and Red Hat will cease to exist as a division and will just be a part of IBM.

Same

Why? Why not use Debian or OpenSUSE?

It was sarcasm bruv. @@cameronbosch1213

I want you to take a look at the Linux foundation sponsors. If you truly want an OS that's got no corporate influence, you're going to have to dig pretty deep. Even Unix itself was made by a corporation. Have fun daily driving temple os.

Careful with that line of reason. By that logic, how much money did the Linux Kernel developers make those over 100 commercial installs as well? What about the FSF or other individual devs? Don't forget that RHEL itself is built on-top of plenty of FOSS applications that don't get direct financial compensation either. If they're lucky they might get donations or code contributions from RedHat, but it's not a guarantee.

How much of the code was written by Red Hat? Basically the installer script and maybe a control panel / settings app.

@@Shubadus The Kernel does not offer free 10 year support...