Should we be wary of Red Hat?
They were bought by IBM a few years back, but even aside from that they’re a corporation and they care about making money above all else.
It looks like Red Hat is doing its damnedest to consolidate as much power for themselves within the Linux ecosystem.
I don’t think the incessant Fedora shilling is unrelated.
It seems like there isn’t much criticism of the company or their tactics, and I’m curious if any of you think that should change.
rumschlumpel
in reply to propitiouspanda • • •It definitely makes me suspicious, considering they're a standard 'money above all else' company operating in a fascist state. They don't seem to abuse their power much, yet, but that can change rather quickly.
I do think there are quite a few linux users and developers who are suspicious of Red Hat, they are a small-ish but pretty vocal minority. Suspicion of Red Hat was a major reason why systemd was so controversial.
dgdft
in reply to rumschlumpel • • •Yeah, I’m with you all the way — no shade to OP, but the question has a flawed premise. I think the majority opinion is that they’re both an asset and a liability. They’re a huge contributor to the ecosystem and have done a lot of practical good, but I also think the community will turn on a dime if the suits overstep into FAFO territory.
(All that said, fuck Lennart Poettering. Dude couldn’t design a plan to get himself out of a paper bag.)
rumschlumpel
in reply to dgdft • • •dgdft
in reply to rumschlumpel • • •Sorry, bad phrasing on my end. I agree the community should suspicious, but I think the flawed premise in
is that there is consistent, well-founded criticism and has been this whole time. And even though the vocal folks are a minority, a lot of people feel ambivalent about the relationship rather than viewing it favorably.
Possibly linux
in reply to dgdft • • •Honestly I don't really see the systemd hate
Unless they system has less than 64mb of storage I wouldn't use anything but systemd
dgdft
in reply to Possibly linux • • •I appreciate systemd at a high level, and use it all the time, but Nanook’s comment in this thread is dead on the money in my book:
lemmy.world/post/30945123/1751…
The CLI interfaces for PA and SysD are janky/verbose af and make it hard for beginners to do simple things as well. E.g. try wiring up a virtual device with
pacmdthat fuses your desktop audio and mic output into a combined source using only the man pages, or putting together a fresh service from memory without looking up any directives.E: even better example, compare how easy it is to set something up to run in cron vs. a systemd timer.
N0x0n
in reply to propitiouspanda • • •Isn't RedHat who pushed systemd? Most init enthusiasts hate systemd ! Dunno if related tho. I'm just recently into linux so I never had the chance to give the init system a try !
However, I'm an opensource and free from corporate shit software lover. Try to avoid everything related to corpo (Redhat, Ubuntu...). That's exaclty the reason why I'm reluctant to give Fedora a try, even tough it seems kinda a good distro !
Debian as server distro
EndeavourOS as daily drive
Nanook
Unknown parent • •@just_another_person @rumschlumpel The idea of replacing system-V init with an init system capable of parallel start-ups in an era where multi-core CPUs became the norm makes sense. If it had stopped at this I would have been fine with it.
But it then goes and takes over DNS and in a way that breaks some mail sites that have spf records in a single record longer than 512 bytes which is officially against the DNS standard but which bind9 was fine with, then it had to take over system time keeping, and then user home directories, and then it wants to containerize everything.
The original Unix and by extension Linux philosophy was make one tool to do one thing and make it do it well.
Systemd by contrast is now one bloatware that wants to do everything and doesn't do everything well. It does perform it's function as a new init well.
Nanook
Unknown parent • •queermunist she/her
in reply to propitiouspanda • • •FlexibleToast
in reply to queermunist she/her • • •queermunist she/her
in reply to FlexibleToast • • •FlexibleToast
in reply to queermunist she/her • • •queermunist she/her
in reply to FlexibleToast • • •Because if they EEE all Linux distribution, they'll be able to kill off the libre aspects of the software and (in their minds) make even more money.
Revenue is never enough. They always want more.
Nanook
in reply to queermunist she/her • •queermunist she/her
in reply to Nanook • • •Why not? Until they have cornered distribution of the software they can't Extinguish yet. EEE isn't an instant process, it takes time. Crush all other distribution first and then killing it comes next.
The goal is proprietary Linux. Why would they settle for anything less?
Nanook
Unknown parent • •Nanook
Unknown parent • •like this
dgdft likes this.
Nanook
Unknown parent • •Badabinski
in reply to Nanook • • •I mean, systemd-networkd and systemd-timesyncd are both completely independent and are not required by systemd. I use connman and chronyd on my arch box and systemd gives not one fuck.
There's still some totally valid concern to be had over how bundled a lot of this stuff is, but it's not all one big blob.
Nanook
in reply to Badabinski • •dgdft likes this.
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks
in reply to propitiouspanda • • •IBM sucks. They have bought up a bunch of small data centers and made them worse.
I'm still pissed about CentOS as well. Long live Rocky.
Possibly linux
in reply to zero_spelled_with_an_ecks • • •FlexibleToast
in reply to Possibly linux • • •Possibly linux
in reply to FlexibleToast • • •LeFantome
in reply to zero_spelled_with_an_ecks • • •Dark Arc
in reply to LeFantome • • •FlexibleToast
in reply to zero_spelled_with_an_ecks • • •zero_spelled_with_an_ecks
in reply to FlexibleToast • • •FlexibleToast
in reply to zero_spelled_with_an_ecks • • •zero_spelled_with_an_ecks
in reply to FlexibleToast • • •FlexibleToast
in reply to zero_spelled_with_an_ecks • • •So, you're okay with one company taking another company's work, contributing nothing to it themselves, then hiring company A's employees, and finally taking company A's customers? Not even Oracle was slimy enough to do that.
IBM does not back roll Red Hat. Red Hat acts and reports independently of IBM.
Dark Arc
in reply to Nanook • • •I think systemd has moved desktop and server Linux towards being more BSD-like ... and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.
Maybe we'll end up needing an X11 -> Wayland sort of transition where there are protocols instead of "an implementation."
However, I've yet to see systemd be meaningfully detrimental. Are distros a little less different? Yeah. Has it made my life easier when I need to go between distros? Also, yeah.
I think on some level, we're just getting to a more mature Linux desktop and server ... and as a result consolidating on stuff that really doesn't have strong reasoning to be different.