And not even a remotely creative statement. 🙄

Last I checked they haven’t yet added user-facing controls to configure this yet. I don’t know where it is on the priority list.

Hm, then respectfully, if it’s not possible for a RedHat employee to be anything more than an advertisement and we’re judging the number of people on either side to be the indicator of truth, then I guess there’s nothing productive for you and I to discuss. I didn’t hear anything that sounded like rationalization or excuses from the RedHat guy.

Something people were getting for free is no longer free. Those people will always outnumber anyone who has a different perspective on the situation. Which is why I said that FOSS enthusiasts have a tendency not to understand or appreciate what they’re getting for “free” and everyone wants to treat open source like it’s entirely powered by community and spirit and “money” or “compensation” or “economics” don’t really mean anything because we shrug it aside.

Everyone wants to demonize the big bad corporate IBM but somehow we’re totally happy looking the other way while Rocky Linux happily clones the product and sells support contracts to NASA that should rightfully go to RedHat, no matter how much money RedHat makes.

I think RedHat has provided tons of alternatives and compromises that don’t involve buying RHEL. Again, I don’t think this decision is going to convert anyone to a paid customer.

I trust them to run the compiled binary code they provide, why wouldn’t I trust them to do the right thing with telemetry to actually improve the experience?

You can literally see the metrics schema and what is being collected, it’s not some proprietary sneak on your system secretly phoning home. If it gives them actual information on problems, allows them to correlate issues with environment, cause and effect, UX heatmaps to improve common actions, why wouldn’t I want that?

I can be privacy-minded, but also not have the binary black and white opinion that all telemetry is bad and evil. I’ve almost never reported bugs directly to a distro, it’s just not something I have the time or patience for. But in the absence of that as my contribution, my telemetry is likely to help at least paint a picture for developers on where to start with fixing issues, and I think that’s just fine.

Plus, I can just opt out at any time. And I have zero issues trusting Fedora that when I say “opt out” it will actually opt out and not try to do some funny business.

Wow, that’s a weird take. The host brings up several points on the other side too, and the Red Hat employee even acknowledges some shortcomings, but all you really heard was “RedHat good everyone else bad” when you listened to that?

I mean, you want multiple perspectives, you need to include someone who has a stake in both. The entire Linux community is seemingly latched on to one side, does it not make sense to bring in someone from RedHat? Why are they automatically just “company yes men”?

How can you ever have any kind of nuance or understanding of the other side if you just view it black and white like that? I’ve read and understood the claims from people that are upset with Red Hat, and I kind of get it, but I also think these people don’t really understand the value of what it is they’re using. Under-appreciating what you get for “free” is a very, very common sentiment among FOSS users (and I’m no exception, I’m sure I’m guilty of it too). But the facts here are simple; no one is really “losing” anything here except Rocky and Alma, and they should not have built their business model on basically taking de-branded RHEL and selling support for it directly.

Like I said, Fedora is not going anywhere, CentOS Stream is not going anywhere. If you are a Red Hat customer, the source code of whatever you run is always fully available. There is literally nothing being lost by anyone except those who wanted to use Rocky/Alma as a perfect 1:1 clone of RHEL without contributing a single penny back to RedHat. Yet somehow, the narrative has been changed into “Redhat is being evil and violating the spirit of open source and blah blah blah” and somehow, conveniently, no one has noticed that all of the narrative seems to only benefit/support Rocky and Alma? No one finds that the least bit suspicious?

Whether or not RedHat is going to suddenly claw back a bunch of business from all these people that were using “free” RHEL, that I highly doubt. As far as a move to try to regain perceived losses, I doubt RedHat is going to have any success with that, if that’s their intention. But see, I can have the opinion that they’re removing loopholes for competitors who add absolutely nothing (whether monetary or code contributions) but take and “resell”, and I can also have the opinion that it’s probably not going to change the bottom line much because people who were used to getting “RHEL” for “free” aren’t going to start paying for RHEL, they’re just going to go elsewhere.

If you want to make money and kill clones make your distro free but charge for official support.

That model just does not work. For the engineering that goes into RedHat (and all the contributions back to the community they send), they just don’t make enough for that to happen. Everyone just wants to shrug this off as “Oh IBM has lots of money so that’s not a problem”. This “make it free and charge for support” model almost never works for FOSS yet so many people want to believe it does. On an enterprise level, it just doesn’t. People who want to use an enterprise distro of Linux for free also likely don’t want to pay for support either, instead wanting to support it themselves. Which is all well and good but that doesn’t account for the fact RHEL does all the engineering, all the building, all the testing, everything, and then puts that release up for use. All of that has to be covered somehow.

There was never any promise that you’d always be able to create a “bug compatible distro”. Ever. The GPL does not cover future releases or updates and never has, and even implying that it should sets a dangerous precedent of people being entitled to what you haven’t even created yet.

Rather than hearing the emotional takes from people that want to turn this into “RedHat vs the Linux Community”, I strongly suggest you listen to LinuxUnplugged: https://linuxunplugged.com/517?t=506.

RedHat is still contributing everything upstream, and CentOS Stream is not going anywhere. You have full access to the source of whatever you buy.

The only thing that has changed here is that the loophole that Alma and Rocky were using to create a RHEL clone and then offer support for it (Which is literally RedHat’s own business model) is gone. Those two are throwing a tantrum because they got to set up a nice easy business model where they literally did nothing more than clone RHEL and then offer support for it and that free lunch is over. That’s it. They don’t contribute back to RHEL, they don’t do anything to help development. They sold themselves as the “free” or “cheaper” alternative and now they’re getting burned for building their entire business of the work done by RHEL.

Everything else in this story is noise, drama, and unnecessary emotion.

Not remotely.

Maybe certain people should think twice about setting up an entire business model of support based on having the current company do all the engineering work, cloning it, and then taking the support contracts for it.

Both Fedora and CentOS Stream are still very much upstream. Just certain CentOS alternatives are throwing a hissy-fit/tantrum that their nice neat little “cloned distro + support” business model fell apart overnight because they built their entire business off of what’s basically (not entirely) a loophole.

TCLs have phenomenal value for panel quality and price, and what you can get for the money just keeps increasing.

And with archinstall I’d argue it’s about as easy to install as most “normal” distros these days.