▲ 241 ▼ Red Hat: why I'm going all in on community-driven Linux distros. (youtu.be) submitted 3 years ago by igalmarino@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml 50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] mpiepgrass@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Can someone rational explain the concern here? permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) Red Hat turning evil, Fedora (controlled by Red Hat) implementing telemetry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] mpiepgrass@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) I am disappointed in the direction RH has moved in, but what makes it evil? I am certain that a good portion of their work will make its way into open source projects. So it seems to me that it is a good thing that we all hope would be better. And I thought you had to opt into the Fedora telemetry. Is that not the case? If they are using it for design improvements it's all to the good. If Fedora is selling the information and they force or trick users into it, then yes, Fedora will deserve its inevitable demise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am certain that a good portion of their work will make its way into open source projects. 100% should make its way, that's open source. Now projects need to be scared when looking at Red Hat code because they might get sued for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) RedHat is not going closed source. All the code is still open source. Nobody is getting sued for looking at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Read Red Hat's new license terms and then try again, kid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago Yah I don't get it. I don't think people realize how much of the stuff they run is developed by Red Hat. I think people still think its coders in their free time contributing but alot of the kernel and other big projects are done by people who are paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Captain_Wtv@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) Red Hat turning evil, Fedora (controlled by Red Hat) implementing telemetry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] mpiepgrass@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) I am disappointed in the direction RH has moved in, but what makes it evil? I am certain that a good portion of their work will make its way into open source projects. So it seems to me that it is a good thing that we all hope would be better. And I thought you had to opt into the Fedora telemetry. Is that not the case? If they are using it for design improvements it's all to the good. If Fedora is selling the information and they force or trick users into it, then yes, Fedora will deserve its inevitable demise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am certain that a good portion of their work will make its way into open source projects. 100% should make its way, that's open source. Now projects need to be scared when looking at Red Hat code because they might get sued for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) RedHat is not going closed source. All the code is still open source. Nobody is getting sued for looking at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Read Red Hat's new license terms and then try again, kid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago Yah I don't get it. I don't think people realize how much of the stuff they run is developed by Red Hat. I think people still think its coders in their free time contributing but alot of the kernel and other big projects are done by people who are paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Captain_Wtv@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mpiepgrass@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) I am disappointed in the direction RH has moved in, but what makes it evil? I am certain that a good portion of their work will make its way into open source projects. So it seems to me that it is a good thing that we all hope would be better. And I thought you had to opt into the Fedora telemetry. Is that not the case? If they are using it for design improvements it's all to the good. If Fedora is selling the information and they force or trick users into it, then yes, Fedora will deserve its inevitable demise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am certain that a good portion of their work will make its way into open source projects. 100% should make its way, that's open source. Now projects need to be scared when looking at Red Hat code because they might get sued for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) RedHat is not going closed source. All the code is still open source. Nobody is getting sued for looking at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Read Red Hat's new license terms and then try again, kid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago Yah I don't get it. I don't think people realize how much of the stuff they run is developed by Red Hat. I think people still think its coders in their free time contributing but alot of the kernel and other big projects are done by people who are paid. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am certain that a good portion of their work will make its way into open source projects. 100% should make its way, that's open source. Now projects need to be scared when looking at Red Hat code because they might get sued for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) RedHat is not going closed source. All the code is still open source. Nobody is getting sued for looking at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Read Red Hat's new license terms and then try again, kid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) RedHat is not going closed source. All the code is still open source. Nobody is getting sued for looking at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Read Red Hat's new license terms and then try again, kid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Read Red Hat's new license terms and then try again, kid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago Yah I don't get it. I don't think people realize how much of the stuff they run is developed by Red Hat. I think people still think its coders in their free time contributing but alot of the kernel and other big projects are done by people who are paid. permalink fedilink source parent