this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
43 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48216 readers
848 users here now

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.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
43
I don't find any value in Red-Hat but I see their corporate thinking. Who really need them and why? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by Kajika@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I see all the drama around Red-hat and I still don't get why companies would use RHEL (or centos when it existed). I was in many companies and CentOS being years behind was awful for any recent application (GPU acceleration, even new CPU had problems with old Linux kernels shipped in CentOS).

Long story short the only time one of the company I worked in considered CentOS it was ditched out due to many problems and not even being devs/researchers friendly.

I hear a lot of Youtube influencers "talking" (or reading the Red-Hat statements) about all the work Red-Hat is doing but I don't see any. I know I dislike gnome so I don't care they contribute to that.

What I see though is a philosophy against FOSS. They even did a Microsoft move with CentOS (Embrace, extend, and extinguish). I see corporate not liking sharing and collaborating together but aiming at feeding of technology built as a collective. I am convinced they would love to patent science discovery too. I am pretty sure there is a deep gap in philosophy between people wanting "business-grade" Linux and FOSS community.

If you have concrete examples of Red-Hat added value that cannot be fulfilled by independent experts or FOSS community, I'd really like to hear that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jflesch@lemmy.kwain.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I worked for a bank. When they decided to deploy Linux on their infrastructure, they chose RHEL and they have signed a big contract with RedHat for tech support.

Overall, they chose RedHat for the same reason they chose Microsoft before: tech support. They have >10000 engineers, and yet somehow they think they absolutely need tech support... They pay a lot for it. In my building, they even got a Microsoft engineer once a week on-site until Covid. I don't know for the other people working for this bank, but I asked for Microsoft support only once in 2 years. In the end, their guy sent me back an email telling me "I've transmitted your question to the corresponding engineering team" and .. diddlysquat.

Now to be fair, for paying customers, RHEL and Microsoft both ensure security updates for a really a long time. Red Hat pays a lot of people to backport security patches from upstream to previous versions. It allows companies like the bank I worked for to keep running completely crappy and obsolete software for an insane amount of time without having to worry too much about security vulnerabilities.

Anyway regarding RedHat contributions, a lot of them are subtle.

  • A friend of mine works for RedHat. He is a core Python developer and is paid full-time by RedHat to work on Python.
  • Through this friend, I applied for a position in their company at some point (unfortunately, it didn't happen ; don't remember why exactly). The position was in a team dedicated to improve hardware support. They have built an infrastructure to let computer manufacturers (Dell, Lenovo, etc) test the compatibility of their new hardware with Linux/RHEL quickly and automatically.
  • Part of the technical support they provide to some clients is "making things work". It may imply fixing bugs or improving drivers and then sending patches upstream.
  • If I'm not mistaken, they paid Lennart Poettering to work on Systemd and Pulseaudio.
  • They pay for the development of some infrastructure software like Corosync for instance.

This list is far from exhaustive. I'm sure they have paid for a lot of other things you're using daily without knowing it.