Ehh, well it's something interesting. I've never really ever used RHEL myself on any of my servers. I do know some people that might be impacted.
Great response to the discussion, as this 2012 article lays our their path many years ago. Lots of very economically valid reasons for changing, and it seems to have worked even if it is a shame to see. It makes me wonder if the changing economy is going to put more pressure on other favorites to monitize or fail. I say this given that volunteers are showing a decline so without people spending free time, then open-source software will face further challenges.
I don't want to digress too much, but I can't help but juxtapose the slow change and monetization RH has done very well as compared to the idiocy that Reddit is doing.
As someone who admins around 200 Rocky 8/9 and Centos 7 servers, this is a little concerning.
But I have a lot of faith in Rocky and Alma, who are reportedly working together, in coming up with a solution to ensure they continue getting security fixes and updates.
Redhat are steadily turning into every bit as anti-competitive and, well, evil, as Oracle used to be. It's a shame as they used to do a lot for the FOSS world. Now they seem content to profit from it and give nothing back.
anti-competitive and, well, evil, as Oracle used to be.
Used to be?
Big Blue asserting their dominance. Unfortunately at the cost of some very fantastic community projects.
As a strictly desktop/personal Linux user, could someone enlighten me: What advantage (if any) does RHEL have over Ubuntu Pro at this point?
I was there at nearly the beginning with Redhat 1 and kernel series 1.1.x and 1.2.x series. Redhat died when IBM bought them. My company has finally completely moved away - I pushed very strongly to dump RHAT - all Debian and FreeBSD now.
The thing that struck me the hardest was when I found out that this doesn't breach the GPT license.
Basically this only effects downstream distros like Rocky, Fedora is upstream so it will be fine.
At this point I'm more concerned that this sets a very dangerous precedent.
They aren't going closed source though? Just not providing source to everyone. But everyone who gets binaries from them still gets access to the source code. Unless I'm missing something?
I am worried about the impact it will have on clone distros like Alma linux.
The code can still be accessed from a free developer account, but I'm not sure about the implications it will have on the legalities and licences.
Interestingly, I've been trying to push my HPC customers towards SLES and Ubuntu LTS. SLES has better extended support for minor releases (that doesn't cost an arm and a leg), and Ubuntu's LTS... for obvious reasons.
How has Cannonical support been recently? I used Ubuntu Server for a while, but never really needed to use my support contract, but my recollection is that it was fairly light.
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.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0