Linux

48186 readers

1638 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

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

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

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

[–] bacteriostat@lemmy.one 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-program-office/contributions

Believe it or not corporates play a big role in making Linux what it is and their enshittification is bad for Linux ecosystem.

Sad that RedHat went this way.

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bacteriostat@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago

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.