Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/AjXLblBzWvs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
129 points (90.1% liked)
Linux
48991 readers
2298 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
good bot
based
good bot
Thanks for introducing me to this, PipedLinkBot.
Here is the source blog post from oracle: https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/blog/keep-linux-open-and-free-2023-07-10/
RedHat really fucked up with this move. I know RedHat employees and everyone from RedHat I met so far was proud they work there and how much open source meant to the company. I guess there will be more and more redhatters looking for new opportunities in the coming months.
But Oracle? How are they better in any way? RedHat still writes FOSS software. Oracle just profited off it being easy for RHEL customers to migrate to Oracle Linux. They do add on top of RHEL, but they could built a distro themselves too.
This article reads to me like satire from Oracle.
PS: I don't like what RH done either.
Never meant to defend oracle. I dislike them even more than IBM.
IMHO Redhat cloud was just as proprietary as oracle's. Sure, Redhat was one of (if not the) the greatest contributor to open source, but since acquired by IBM it seems the momentum is going down (I don't have any data on this, only a few articles like this I've reaad)
IBM
Everyone keeps saying redhat this, redhat that as if they're talking of an independent entity. IBM bought redhat, and probably to run it into the ground too. Fuck IBM.
By the way, I still don't believe oracle's "commitment" to open source, but that writing was a cool slap to IBM's face.
Yes, it was indeed a really stupid move.
Let them fight, and rock on with Debian.
No, we need to get Canonical in on the action. 3 way brawl to the death!
Canonical has its own issues. Security updates to packages being put behind a paywall called “Ubuntu Pro” even during the LTS window is driving people away from Ubuntu right now as well.
Wait, what? I need to expedite my migration to debian.
If you want more info look here: https://ubuntu.com/security/esm
Imagine if you were trying to keep compliance and suddenly a security update was an ESM package found in the Universe repo? To get that update installed you’d have to pay Ubuntu Pro for each host you have.
They have a personal license like how Red Hat allows some licenses for personal use so if you have a few home machines it’s fine. But if you have a job that has a fleet? Not a fun time to suddenly need to pay for updates even during LTS window.
how Red Hat allows some licenses for personal use
This programme has a serious barrier to continued entry. It's all but fake. The only way is Rocky.
Hell, I've got probably 15 systems between vms and phy boxes at home.
Tbh, just stop using software well past it's prime, or pay the cost of developing the fixes.
Everything can't be free, at some point it's gotta cost something.
Everything can’t be free, at some point it’s gotta cost something.
Not everything is a "fuck you pay me" relationship. Being a dev who for years built a tool used by people on the daily, the entire thing was a labour of love and I was glad others used and improved it.
I'm sorry you were raised so mercenary. American?
You mean the security updates they get for free from Debian?
Or are they developing their own security patches and NOT pushing it back upstream?
Exactly
Microsoft is probably considering to release an enterprise Linux product right now. Perhaps called Windows Subsystem for Enterprise Linux.
“Weasel News…”
Don't they already have Azure Linux?
Begun, the Enterprise Linux Wars have.
Begun, the git clone wars have.
Yeah. I wouldn’t say I’m a huge oracle fan - and maybe this is pandering - but ibm’s move was such shit. It’s plain manipulation of gpl terms and does not really honor the intent.
Where there's money, there's war 😬
--
"Can't you see,
It all makes perfect sense,
Expressed in dollars and cents, pennies, shillings and pence.
Oracle does a have a point though, they did release ZFS and BTRFS as open source projects. Granted, RH has done the same with other software packages, but not something as important as a FS. ZFS was a finished product, BTRFS not so much, but still, these 2 are greatly valued in the open source community.
Not siding with Oracle, I don't like them one bit, but facts are facts 🤷.
Oracle's implementation of ZFS is Proprietary software. The original version was developed with an open source model By Sun microsystems, which was bought by oracle. And Oracle contributing to the Linux Kernel with BTRFS isn't that ground breaking
Still, no one else did it... I mean, after RaiserFS, was there another FS released under GPL that was a viable alternative to EXT*?
BTRFS, which works great as long as you accept its limitations.
Correct... don't like that, but yes, that is correct.
which works great as long as you accept its limitations.
This can be said of cannibalism, fascism and the GoP also. Just, some have massive limitations you'll be accepting, but the statement is still true.
XFS maybe?
Maybe...
- 4% perf increase
- occasionally losing your data
- can't shrink. ever.
XFS is such a non-starter.
Well, openZFS is quite good, but it's license is incompatible with the GPL
RedHat are key contributors to a stack of open source projects aside from the kernel itself. For example they are one of the lead contributors to QEMU, far ahead of Oracle.
RedHat were key contributors
And now they're barely pedestrians.
They were always IBM's front for open/free code and the undermine of linux. Grew economically more than any Op.Fr. project because of IBM's consulting and training subcontracts passed under the table. Eventually they were absorbed by their mothership.
I know, but let's face it, QEMU is not something you absolutely need to run an OS, like an FS for example.
Linux supports loads of filesystems. ext4 works well for most people and is considerably easier to use without jumping hoops for Oracle's deliberately misaligned license for ZFS.
Everyone knows that, and everyone knows that BTRFS was released under GPL to restore the balance (as well as have the FS maintained and developed for free).
My point was, Oracle has contributed as well as RH. They offered to make RHEL instead of RH, RH do repacks. IBM is just greedy and we have seen where these sorts of things lead, to a dead company.
Only the Taco Bell distro will survive.
Oracle and their stupid PR stunts
view more: next ›