RedHat Becomes Closed Source (Who Didn't See This Coming?)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 жов 2024
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux has decided to no longer make its source code publicly available. That's right...RHEL will become closed source. What does this mean? Should you care?
WANT TO SUPPORT THE CHANNEL?
💰 Patreon: / distrotube
💳 Paypal: www.youtube.co...
🛍️ Amazon: amzn.to/2RotFFi
👕 Teespring: teespring.com/...
DONATE CRYPTO:
💰 Bitcoin: 1Mp6ebz5bNcjNFW7XWHVht36SkiLoxPKoX
🐶 Dogecoin: D5fpRD1JRoBFPDXSBocRTp8W9uKzfwLFAu
📕 LBC: bMfA2c3zmcLxPCpyPcrykLvMhZ7A5mQuhJ
DT ON THE WEB:
🕸️ Website: distrotube.com/
📁 GitLab: gitlab.com/dwt1
🗨️ Mastodon: fosstodon.org/...
👫 Reddit: / distrotube
📽️ LBRY/Odysee: odysee.com/@Di...
FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE THAT I USE:
🌐 Brave Browser - brave.com/dis872
📽️ Open Broadcaster Software: obsproject.com/
🎬 Kdenlive: kdenlive.org
🎨 GIMP: www.gimp.org/
🎵 Tenacity: github.com/ten...
💻 VirtualBox: www.virtualbox...
🗒️ Doom Emacs: github.com/hli...
Your support is very much appreciated. Thanks, guys!
My firm is required to have commercial support for our production Linux deployments due to audit requirements. Years ago we were a CentOS/(paying) RHEL shop for our data centers. We completely migrated to Ubuntu when RedHat killed CentOS since we didn't trust RedHat to do exactly this.
Exactly this point. And more to the point, *why* are they doing this *now* ? To me it signals a "canary in the coalmine" situation -- is it because they're planning on popping in some nefarious proprietary code that does only God-knows-what? I think we'll see a *lot* of existing RHEL customers taking cold feet about this and turning somewhere else. Or just switch to FreeBSD
Rumors of Microsoft buying Canonical have been going around for years. You might have to make another switch in the future.
Way to go!
@BandanazX that would be terrifying. M$ is already a platinum member of the Linux community. I still do not trust that embrace extend extinguish is not a practice at M$ to this day.
@@BandanazXI don't think that is even possible, Canonical is not a publicly traded company like Red Hat was so MS would need the full approval of the people who founded the company for any sale which is highly unlikely to begin with. Even if we forget all that, any deal like that is never passing UK regulators, the UK competition authorities have already blocked other such big tech acquisitions like Microsoft-Activision and played a role in blocking the Nvidea-ARM deal, so why would they ever allow MS to buy a British company that is like the biggest competitor to MS in the OS space after Apple.
The biggest problem is that RHEL was the best example that Open Source could work in an enterprise environment, so basically, there were money for OpenSource stuff.
@@barongerhardt In the short term, it won't, because it will be a selling point for many companies to try RHEL.
It depends if the market will last until they realise it.
@@barongerhardt A selling point not for the common user, but for companies.
Companies loves companies, they don't really like the whole FOSS idea, so they want to keep total control (and most of the profits) of anything they invest money into.
I'm pretty sure RHEL just fell for the clients pressure to not share the code with non-paying customers, since the whole RH company lives off the money other companies give to them.
@@barongerhardt"why would I pay for something that I don't have exclusive access to? Why don't I get to feel special?"
@@barongerhardt i'm talking Intel/IBM/Amazon level of companies, not the small-medium companies that do not really invest much into the project.
@@MrLast98 From economical perspective if system A is free of charge and let you make same profit, than system B that you have to pay for, which one will you choose?
I work in IT. And the answer is simple. Pay less, earn a lot. If there is an area where os can be implemented, it's being implemented. Period.
There are other distros. It's kinda sad to see redhat head in this direction, but linux will survive.
unfortunately redhat is really bankrolling and pushing forward development in the linux desktop space, we'll live without them but this really sucks for mainstream adoption
@@DMSBrian24 hopefully someone steps up to fill that void.
@Viktorian88 Keep crying
Yes. Fedora users are Redhat's beta testers. Always has been this way. The idea, way back then, was that Fedora users would willingly become Redhat labrats and Redhat would invest some of their profits to vastly improve the Linux experience. That was the idea, at least.
good ol' symbiotic relationships
I gladly started using Fedora way back when (on my home and work desktop machines), as it gave access to the "latest and greatest" developments.
Definitely wasn't without bumps, at least one install had no network comms until compiling a NIC driver from source.
Was running CentOS on servers.
But left them behind years ago ,first for Ubuntu, , and last 3.5 years for Arch based distro's.
Looks like Red Hat are investing around 19.9% of their revenue or $668,542,000 into making Linux a better place, so I would say it's a good trade.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000108742319000012/rht-10kq4fy19.htm
@@GladeSwope If you are running a service within a bank that processes billions of dollars worth of transactions per day where each contractor's time costs at least $1000 per day, you are not even going to think about it and these are the people likely use Read Hat Enterprise Linux.
I would use Fedora if they were paying me.
If you're looking to depart from RHEL and still want paid for support, SUSE would also be a good choice, since you would still have a distro that runs on RPM.
Prepare for hostil compatibility war.
Suse do not provide the same source for YAST. At the end of the days, programmers have bills too. Business and univerty can afford to paid for their servers.
Really looks like the old Oracle way of things. How they close-source many project in the past, with Solaris as the most notable example.
It also was the practical death of many the projects where they did it. These all got forked and those open source forks continued and became succesful.
Ironically one of their main motivations may have been oracles freeloading off of RHEL 😂
@@Ogbobbyjohnson92010 yes....very true...a big corporate giant like Oracle using RHEL source code and providing it freely as their OWN would have surely hurt RHEL revenues. Plus Oracle support cost is cheaper than RHEL.
When Centos was killed I started migrating my servers in my workplace to Debian whenever they were scheduled for an upgrade. (13 servers) Any Linux can run our services, but I have to respect the organization that makes it and RedHat lost my respect years ago!
I am thinking to do the same. But I am not really confident about Debian, is really a stable distribution? Do you recommend it for production? . Just for the records the services we run are: Java and php based applications, apache server, mariadb and postgresql, and a lot of Docker containers.. Thank you I would appreciate your comments.
Debian FTW!
@@mariobanales5194 Most people have been switching to Ubuntu, but I've always used the base distributions, not their offshoots with additional eye candy. Since I don't use graphical UI, only the console and terminal the switchover was very easy. We currently only run services such as Apache, Samba, MariaDB, MongoDB, Postgresql, Radius, OpenVPN, etc and we haven't had any problems. We do have one ubuntu system for video monitoring since we needed a desktop, but it's practically the same system from an administration point of view. We recently just started using Docker containers as well and so far so good. In my personal opinion FreeBSD and Debian are the most very stable systems, but Debian is more intuitive to me.
@bulldogcraft7711 Thank you very much for your response
do you like how debian/ubuntu does distro upgrades and kernel upgrades? I find it all so inferior to fedora/rhel. In particular ubuntu "archives" the urls, so if you don't upgrade a machine on time, the procedure to upgrade stops working without a lot of url hacking in conf files.
Well, MySQL went there someting similar after Oracle purchased it. First they made it closed sourced, then after all the complaints from the developer community they released a "community" version. And sometime after that the source was forked and Mariadb was born.
How can they make additional restriction over GPL? GPL states that you can redistribute copies of software along with source and also it says you can't add additional restrictions on top of it. Also this is annoying to see redhat doing this
Techically speaking rpm specs arent covered under originsl source codes license
@@bigpod"rpm specs"? Is it the part of redhat that builds the actual redhat on top of linux or something?
Also it was never GPL?
@@prajhualak well yes they build their own rpm specs which were up until now openly shared but looks like they chabged the license
@@bigpod technically speaking derivative work based on GPL source has to be still GPL licensed and this can't be changed. That's why it's a copyleft license and promoted by GNU.
@@N0zer0 That really depends on where you draw the line between a derivative work and a separate, original work. One might say that the entire OS project is considered a single work, and therefore a derivative work. One might also say that only the kernel and GNU/other userspace stuff are covered by GPL and that other, separate binaries that simply reference them, and could reasonably work with other implementations, are original works that aren't covered by GPL. Red Hat obviously went for the latter interpretation.
I'm switching from Fedora to Ubuntu. Not gonna be lab rat for free for Red Hat's profit.
Yeah... I'm kinda doing that as well
Guys, that's not how that works, lol. Fedora is way further upstream than centOS. It's completely out of the way. Fedora is still and will remain a community driven project.
Imagine thinking Red Hat isn’t allowed to profit off of their software.
Such a shame, I may try opensuse instead of fedora.
lol Fedora is fine, you should only move away from CentOS and RHEL right now…
This make me wonder what the future of CentOS and Fedora is going to look like.
sounds pretty dull tbh lol
I don't think CentOS and Fedora would be going anywhere cause of the purpose they serve to RHEL. Fedora is the "testing ground" for RHEL stuff and CentOS (Stream) is now the "next minor version" preview of RHEL. This means CentOS and Fedora users serve as the testers for building the next RHEL stuff so the usage and feedback is important to getting RHEL to be well tested and stable.
I feel like all this is aimed at blocking competitors (Oracle Linux, AWS linux, and other Enterprise Linux distros from just copying RHEL's work for free and competing against RHEL for support licenses )
What's CentOS? It was butchered 2 years ago. Wake up.
@@tvh369 Because it takes work, and work is hard. It's much easier just to copy-paste.
I'm right with you on this. I kinda saw RHEL going closed source when IBM got their hands on it because of what happened to Caldera when Oracle took them over. I also agree that we as Linux desktop users have nothing to worry about. As a long time Funtoo and recent Gentoo desktop user, I'm not affected by it at all. You have a way of giving me a new perspective on things that I haven't thought much about before and I thank you for that.
See also what happened to Sun and everything they contributed when Oracle took them over.
I can't imagine Sun suing Google over their use of Java in Android... or killing off OpenSolaris.
You might want to look into licensing and IP law. This is a huge legal disaster for the whole Linux community in the making.
How is this even legal? If you have a GPL licensed source code you can freely distribute it because the license gives you that right, right? So no matter the NDA I am pretty sure they can't do much about it.
They can't do anything about the past, but they can do as they wish about the future. Iow: you can freely install REL(pre-license-change), but if you want to install REL(post-license-change) you are subject to their new license.
@@rollinkendal8130 It's RHEL, not REL. JFC. Way to ruin your credibility.
It sort of depends. For one, they can do anything as long as they have the copyright. It becomes more difficult if the copyright is shared between many people (I believe the Linux kernel does this). Also, there are ways to circumvent the GPL license. I'm sure their lawyers carefully considered this, so I wouldn't bet on it being illegal. Of course, they can't revoke old distributed code.
Its rpm specs that they closed sourced those arent covered under gpl for one and for 2 techically speaking you are opensource as soon as you share code with users if your users are paud only those need to see it
@@bigpod that's not the definition of open source at all. if it was, we probably wouldn't have had the legal battle between at&t and UC berkeley over the attempts to rewrite all of at&t's proprietary UNIX code.
Hopefully Ubuntu won't do the same, the danger is the "Apple Effect" where one company takes the plunge 1st then the competitors follow.
InDuStRy StAnDaRd
Ubuntu does exactly the same now. Their enterprise version of Ubuntu includes many software packages that aren't included in the free version.
for real hahahaha@@darkcggaming
I know you said it shouldn’t affect Fedora but it wouldn’t surprise me if ibm wants to cut spending and decides to no longer sponsor fedora.
That's okay rhel will get even further behind because they can't take advantage of advancements by a fully community supported Fedora, due to all the "red" tape. Think like OpenAI and Bard.
Interesting point! Let's hope that doesn't happen.
Yep. I wonder what Linus will do as he is using Fedora.
Fedora is used to test new releases basically. So they paying for a service indirectly. I don't think cent os would be mutch used to replace fedora.
@@memorysticky7581 i want that too
"Red Hat Enterprise Linux has decided to no longer make its source code publicly available."
More or less, yes.
"That's right...RHEL will become closed source."
No. That's not what "open source" means.
There are two types of open source. Permissively-licensed open source doesn't require anyone reusing or distributing it to make the code available. Windows, Amazon, your TV - all of these have lots of permissively-licensed open source in them. None of them will give you the source. That code is still open source.
Copyleft licenses, like the GPL, require that, if you distribute a binary, you distribute the source code *to the person to whom you distributed the binary*. Copyleft licenses do not and have never required anyone to distribute the source to the general public. If I write some GPL code and give it to you, I also owe the source code to *you*. Not to your neighbour, not to Joe from down the street, not to anyone else. Only you.
RH has never been obliged to publish the source code publicly, it has just chosen to. It is only obliged to provide the source code to people to whom it provides binaries. It still will do so - if you have an account to download RH binaries, you can also download RH source from the same place. This is entirely in accordance with both forms of open source licensing (in fact, it goes far beyond the requirements of permissive licenses).
The title and summary of this video are simply inaccurate.
I'm not sure that viewpoint has been tested in court.
There is also OpenSUSE, if having a RPM-based server distro is super important to some people.
Maybe NixOS will make a server version. That seems like the best option for servers.
Oh yeah, I keep meaning to try Nix.
I've been thinking of trying nixos. Seems interesting and very promising.
There is no security tracking at all with the Nix project. They have no idea what vulnerabilities are in the distro or when/if they are fixed. They leave it all up to the barely maintained packages.
NixOS is great for servers, and you can make 350++k per year, if you know NixOS, and it take around 3 hours to learn NixOS
Debian, Ubuntu, Alpine, ALT, and BSDs too.
Does this mean Fedora is still open source and basically since Fedora is beta testing for Red Hat that they are using the open source community to test and fix their closed source software upstream?
You mean downstream. Yes. Fedora is upstream from Redhat and is basically beta testing for Redhat. As far as I know most (but not all !) of security and patch fixes find their way from Redhat upstream back to Fedora. In truth as things stand now, Fedora are actually Redhat's alpha testers. Centos is Redhat's beta testing ground.
@@locatemarbles Sure the point I was trying to make though was the open source community is sort of being taken advantage of here.
@@thetapheonix , yes and no. I wrote about it in another comment I made. Scroll down to find it. But to understand that relationship you have to go far far back in time. It started as a win-win relationship. Linux users would become willing beta testers for Redhat and Redhat would invest part of their profits to vastly improve the Linux experience. That way both would be happy.
That's why I'm leaving Fedora, I don't want to support this BS company anymore
@@faustipez and what is a good alternative?
Since the majority of the code for RHEL is GPL, they can't possibly legally withhold that source code. Anything they make "closed source" has to be code they developed themselves which is not GPL licensed. Not sure how it matters, except to make RHEL an enemy of open source.
Not only that but they are required by the GPL to cease distributing the code, not just crease adding restrictions. Once you add the restrictions, you LOSE YOUR GPL LICENSING.
they're not withholding the source code. The source code is available to paying customers. If the customers then redistribute the source code, they won't get new binaries.The GPL only guarantees you the source code if you get the binaries so effectively yeah, this is sort of like making it closed source.
@@infinitelink yeah this, hope they get sued for GPL violations
@@erichernandez5527dang. With that kind of loophole it’s almost as if they’re trying to will GPLv4 into existence
@@A432Hz Oh man that COULD be great. I personally stay far away from the GPL licences myself, because of the humongous loopholes in them (and that I don't strictly believe in the four freedoms unconditionally). My existing license of choice is the Reciprocal Public License (which is explicitly OSI-approved but considered non-free by the FSF for actually requiring people to send back their changes - absolute bullshit), as it does a far, FAR better job of having the source code be distributed back and to public. If a GPL license could come out that actually *properly* patches that loophole, that could be a huge win in the short term at least. Unfortunately, I don't think they'll do anything, especially considering that the product getting abused here (the Linux kernel), is GPLv2-only, not even GPLv3-only, so changes would have no chance to change anything there.
I've actually on-and-off been working on my own family of licenses for years now intended to actually guarantee ethicality WRT to the source code whilst being various levels of corporation-friendly, drawing from licenses like the RPL, the Server Side Public License (which is literally just the AGPLv3 but essentially requiring that services using SSPL-licensed code (e.g. a video-ripping website that uses an SSPL-licensed thing to do important parts of that) must make every part of the service available under the SSPL, to the extent that someone else could take it and set up a direct clone, and the Business Source License (which basically lets you use BSL'd code in non-production use (and optionally production use), but within 4 years of public release, it's under a GPLv2+ compatible license instead). I haven't gotten them to a state ready to like, take to a lawyer yet, but my biggest concern (besides merely getting a big enough base for it to be used), is the competition from the GPL, as both families are inherently incompatible with each other (due to the requirements of my licenses to actually give the complete source back). Makes me kind of prefer using BSD-licensed products, as those could be far more easily combined...
RHEL going this direction is another reason to give Debian 12 a try if you are running a home Red Hat based distro
Provided RHEL doesnt stop/cancel their free self supported dev subscription license. I use RHEL on my personal laptop for normal pc usage - browsing, music, videos , nothing critical at all. But yes Deb 12 is a rally snappy feeling stable alternative too.
At this point I really cannot think of a reason to go with debian, it's so good
I've been on Debian for years. It's funny you suggest switching to it considering it uses so much Redhat code. As for Debian 12, I'm leaving it as it enables too much systemd nonsense to be likable
@@dlarge6502I think Debian team are aware of this. Since RH shenanigan, hopefully they will change their view later.
I lowkey hope that Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE will get a large boost from this. If they offer their OS with more GUI options by default (I'm currently on Fedora GNOME with some small extensions), I could see that one getting really popular.
Lets hope its the kick up the backside Blackmagic need to release a flatpak version of Resolve.
imagine a world where all software companies that develop software for linux port their software to flatpak. I hope that day comes and only some system dependent software that cant be made flatpak needs a stable distro be maintained. softwares like resolve, autodesk softwares, painstorm, cad softwares, pdf softwares, DAW softwares, all flatpak and only server stuff and the system itself be maintained by the distro organizations. This would crush companies like canonical and redhat and so forth and only a few remains truthful to their origins.
does flatkpak support extensions like vsts yet? i remember it was a huge pain trying to get plugins working
Derek, I think you're wrong on one point. This will affect the average desktop linux user if it starts a new trend amount corporate-backed distros who fear competition. We need Linus et al to make a public statement denouncing this. Any company that does this should have their kernel patches ignored and not included into the main tree.
Lol, so the free "freedom" part in free and open source...means absolutely nothing to you....
So basically you want Linus to turn into a dictator and decide who gets the Linux code or not....
I must say how fascists of you 👍
you say that when linus is WEF backed and already has said that he doesn't care about what other companies do to the kernel lmao
Richard Stoleman and members of the free software foundation would be better for talking about this since they are the founders of the GPL.
SUSE is another corporate/paid distro ... they could benefit as well
I mean suse enterprise linux also costs
This move makes me not trust anything developed by Red Hat. Including SystemD, Gnome, and Wayland.
Isn't Red Hat also a major contributor to the Linux kernel?
Why moving away from rhel i get it bit wayland and systemD tin foil theory....
Great choice. Though personally, I never trusted any of those things in the first place. All I need to see was Lennart. Instantly I concluded that if Red Hat employs such a narc, it's already doomed to crash and burn. Only a matter of time.
So you're leaving Linux as well? Red Hat is one of biggest contributors in the Linux kernel. Good luck future Windows user!
And all the rest of the linux desktop, most of it is developed by redhat
In case you didn’t already know this simple rule: Immediately write off ANY tech acquired by IBM. Source: I worked at a software company that was acquired by IBM.
The first GNU/Linux I ever used was Red Hat 5.2. I use Debian or Ubuntu-based distros these days, though I tend to avoid Ubuntu itself, due to the closed Snap backend. This is disappointing news. I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop with Microsoft's purchase of Github!
I use Arch, btw. Sad, just sad for RH users.
Don't forget there is SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) also runs on the Server alongside with Debian and Ubuntu Server. RHEL is just one of the most popular and long in the server game for longer time. Specially bigger corporations were using the RHEL more often. And yes you are right most of the desktop users won't be effected by this. However, in my personal opinion I think we as a open source community always finds our own ways like when openOffice was touched by the Oracle there born LibreOffice. And even if RHEL dies at some point still there are many more linux distros that will born or maybe some new free and opensource Operating System might born.
SUSE is also way more popular in Europe than in the US.
Microsoft is heavily involved with SUSE. that isn't just a rumor. though that could have changed.
@@christopherfortineux6937 you can say the same about Canonical (if not even more so)
but seriously, the most likely buyer of SUSE would be SAP
@@christopherfortineux6937 I think it used to be like that during the Novell time of SuSE. SuSE have histories with Microsoft for sure like collaboration for Hyper V technologies. At the end of the day everything is about business and money. And if this prevents one system being open well as an open source enthusiast we can move toward other open source technologies. And I think because of more open minded people like us influencing those big corporations to slowly moving towards the more open source friendly environment. 🙂Microsoft used for dislike open source and used to do this and that. Still they do. But because of Linux and it's Unix like shell and developer friendliness made it move toward WSL. Same adopting the linux for their Azure cloud also a good move. Where IBM and all those big giant teches used to be more agressive towards those Free Open source movements and now still they are adopting around it for their own servival.
@@kuhluhOG Kinda true, it's more used by the german speaking countries most likely in Europe
I've followed RedHat since the late 90's but never run their code on my boxes due to the corporate structure. Glad I've relied on Debian, proof that org structure is critical in distro selection.
I think they will just make more money, everyone that could leave already left when they changed centos.
So probably a push for Debian then! I never particularly liked Debian but when motivation is there...
Admin here... Well, on my machines I'll only serve OpenBSD or Debian. Keeping it as pure as possible...
IBM overestimated RHEL's importance IMO. We have a lot of products sold to us on a Linux VM. Before IBM bought Redhat, many of these were built using Redhat as a base. After IBM bought it, many of them started switching to CentOS, Alma, Rocky, etc., and now a lot of them are based on Ubuntu server.
There is still a lot of RHEL being used in the enterprise space. However, many enterprise products have already switched away and many new ones don't even want to touch it. Sure, this will make some money for IBM, and maybe they'll get a boost in the stock market for it, but at the end of the day, companies are very much aware of all the other alternatives out there. RHEL, which already was a niche enterprise distro, will just become even more niche after this. When the future of something a company uses seems to be disrupted in some way or has something happen where they're not sure what will happen to it, and there are plenty of other choices, they will re-evaluate their options.
This is more serious than it looks. If they get away with this, other distributions will try it for sure.
You have the freedom to create your own distributions 😊
@@BernardoHenriquezthere is already too much of them. The worst case scenario is switch to GNU Guix.
Try what? Think about it and what the licences say, and the fact that these distributions have shared the software with you.
@@andrewwigglesworth3030 Most software is on a license that gives everyone the right to run, but also copy,modify and distribute the software. By preventing people from redistributing, what RH is doing violates the license of many software packages.
@@BernardoHenriquezAnd you have the freedom to write your own OS if you don't like the GPL 😊, R*dditor.
Just when I started to get interested in RHEL and derivatives (sorry, Fedora, not your fault, though my initial interest _was_ .)
The surprise factor, yes, wasn't all _that_ big, but the disappointment _is_ .
I think it might have an immediate effect on some desktop Linux users... I can imagine Fedora users might start distro-hopping.
Also, while Red Hat was always a corporate maintained distro even before IDM too kthem over, Debian is a community maintained distro, so I see it extremely unlikely that Debian would go the same way, they've only just been strongarmed into including proprietary firmware on their install disc!
I'm a Linux Systems Administrator. This is really bad news and a huge betrayal. I'll be promoting Debian from now on. Unfortunately I'll have to keep supporting Red Hat with work, but will start pushing for Debian (which has 5 years LTS support) and then promoting ELTS (Extended Long Term Support) which is paid support for 10 years by the commercial entity: Freexian.
I don't think they realize the amount of people like you - passionate professionals, that will absolutely talk new customers out of redhat before even trying. I'm nervous that it will happen to Ubuntu one day as well - although I think my arch is safe.
Same here! I am a Linux user and SysAdmin for more than 20 years now... and in the end of the day, I always be with Debian 🥰
And yes, I love Freexian too!
Keep in mind that RHEL is like the apple of the Linux world, it starts a trend and after that the majority of other main Linux distros start to copy that trend. For example at some point RHEL decides to replace the sysv init with systemd and nowadays all the major Linux distros adopted systemd, after that RHEL decided to get rid of X and push Wayland and nowadays the majority of Linux distros ship Wayland by default, it's just a matter of time when other distros will start copying the closed source model.
Those things did not happen just because of Red Hat saying so. In fact, Ubuntu was using Gnome Wayland by default before almost anyone else. Most all innovative and experimental distros try such things and see if they work better, and if they do over time it gets into more mainstream distros.
I doubt all the other distros will do the same.
dumb take
RHEL replaced Upstart with systemd, not sysvinit. I think a lot of people forget (or just never knew) that RHEL 6 used Upstart and Fedora did for quite some time too.
The GPL says that you have to give the source to customers which they do.... Just not everyone can get it for free (as in beer). The stupid overhype on this issue is really crazy. However, they really need to work on communicating the reasons better. I'll give you that.
Thank you for stating the obvious, Derek. Other people are (hopefully) faking surprise. RH has ALWAYS shown this character. It's the reason I have never used any version of Red Hat.
Seems running servers on ubuntu was a wise choice
Deabian is even better 😉
@@AtilaVasconcelos i agree. I have a plan to eventually move to Debian all of my servers.
Hi DT, your chat with Patreons Sunday was great. I was only trolling a little bit when asking when Microsoft was going to buy Canonical for product parity with IBM/Red Hat.
The company I'm working for used to use CentOS as the main server distribution, we migrated to AlmaLinux after the whole CentOS stream debacle. We also use Debian and Ubuntu Server to a certain extent, I guess one of those will be out next main distribution. I see a lot of work for us in store...
If you use a Redhat based desktop distribution it will most likely be Fedora, so there shouldn't be a problem with that (I guess...).
The last time i installed and used red hat, it wasn't called rhel yet, it was just red hat linux and there wasn't much difference between desktop linux and server linux back then.
Same. Red Hat 5.2 for me was the first. I don't remember the last version I used before trying out Suse and Mandrake. I loved Mandrake/Mandriva. Red Hat 5.2 had a better installer than vanilla Arch does today. I played along with the installation of Arch on this channel. It seems like sackcloth and ashes masochism to me. I like to know what's happening under the hood,, but not to the resolution of every nut and bolt. I use Debian and Ubuntu-based distros these days, though I avoid Ubuntu because of Snaps closed backend.
@@dalriada842 slackware, red hat, suse and mandrake were my first experiences with linux, too. but in time i turned into an arch, void, gentoo kinda guy. i don't know why but i was never in peace with debian based distros. It might be because of package manager, i really don't like apt.
Must be the biggest SUSE marketing move as their name is almost always left out of discussions.
A few relatives of mine work in a really big network infrastructure and cloud services company (I can't say here which one). They're furious about what RHEL is doing, and they're thinking about migrating everything over to SUSE.
i have never used RHEL (did use red hat linux way way back in the day before things like fedora existed) but I question the legality of "close sourcing" of rhel... rhel is made up of gpl code that code must be freely released and changes to code freely released. does RH make special software themselves that is in rhel that isn't in the centos clones? if they do make special software they can close source that legally, but not the entire disto as its made from gpl. granted the names and logos are not gpl but that falls under trademark laws.
As for the paying aspect, nothing wrong with charging for support.. I could honestly create a arch based disto and charge for support but id have to give the source of my distro away per gpl minus any naming/logos which would fall under trademark and the only code exception I could see is if I made a piece of software called foopoo and kept it closed but id still have to give the rest out per gpl.
I ain't a lawyer so maybe one can chime in... or get Steve Lehto to chime in with a video of the legality of all this.
Besides Canonical another distro where they might move to could be SuSE, which also provides an RPM-based packaging, and great support from what I've heard
I stopped using Red Hat when they made Fedora and RHEL became two separate things. All this does is confirm my decision to switch to Ubuntu Server, just like the CentOS change from a RHEL clone.
Back when I ran home servers Debian was my go-to. Game servers, web servers, file/content servers, Debian met all my needs.
It was also resource friendly so I could dig up some obsolete Pentium 3 based box, load a server loadout of Debian on it, and all my buddies could Minecraft all day on it while my chat group's website was safe and accessible under my purview.
I realize full scale enterprise servers are a different animal than a homelab, but I can see the benefit.
I’m in Cyber Sec and I watch your content. I find it relaxing to watch someone talk about Linux lol. I’ve always loved Linux.
The root of the problem is that RedHat itself had the same old toxic corporate structure like all this bad corporations.
They put themselves in a corner, but I think they(RedHat) are reading the situation as a future of exodus from Microsoft... an opportunity for business licensing scheme, quality control, and money. I think they just missed the point of Linux as an evolution. Don't sell the software, sell the service. They can't control the open source projects that go into it, so I'm scratching my head.
There's also SUSE. At one point it was owned by Novell, and then other companies, but it's its own company again.
Removed SuSE from all the servers i managed the day they signed the devil's stupid "non aggression agreement" with Micro$oft...
@@guyboisvert66 I found where they have an interpretability agreement. I think I remember this in the news a long time ago. But that's a corporate agreement, one which didn't lock any code behind a paid wall that I'm aware of. It made sense for SUSE, in their eyes, and in the long run, might have helped Linux get on more machines. I haven't checked the data on that, honestly.
It's not in any tech company's to be overly aggressive anyway. Even with as much of a rivalry Apple and Microsoft have had, Microsoft has also worked on code for Apple. As much of a rivalry as there may be between two companies in tech, there is also often times collaboration between the two. This has been the case in tech for a long time.
At the end of the day, corporations are about making money. There's going to be some agreements that I'm sure you may not like on a personal level, but I haven't seen anything from their interoperability agreement that has hurt Linux in the long run.
Even Microsoft is contributing some code for Linux now. So if you're so against Microsoft, have you switched over to BSD or Haiku yet?
I don't like Microsoft but I don't have a problem with a company making deals with them where it makes sense when we're in a capitalist system.
First I'm hearing of this myself so I'm not sure of the details. If they just want to stop distributing their config files and build scripts, sure that's fine. However, it is going to be a big deal (and probably illegal against the GPL) to prevent actual source code of the kernel and GPL'd userspace from going public. These big distros often write custom patches and there needs to be a path for those patches to be upstreamed for other distros to use.
Yeah I'm curious if the linux foundation or so other non-profit will take legal action if there's a legit case there. I'm no expert but would be surprised if GPL2 license allows that?
As an Linux sysadmin and cloud infrastructure guy, I totally agree with you. No impact on desktop world as no one uses it. Big companies that use RHEL as server distro, give their employes Windows laptops :(
but if the source code is under GPL the paying costumers that get it have the right to redistribute it if they want
I use RHEL to run Automated Test Equipment (ATE) to test variety of different types of devices (digital, analog, PMIC, high speed, etc.). Definitely couldn't do this efficiently on a windows machine. Plus have bash, python, pearl scripts to run in the terminal. The licensing is so expensive for support and adding new libraries. It's definitely a cash cow if need support or new features. Hope you have deep pockets for the yearly license.
"Definitely couldn't do this efficiently on a windows machine." Did you ever try to?
So that means that Fedora is on its own now? And when did IBM buy Red Hat?
Fedora will probably stay sponsored by Red Hat, this doesn't change much for Fedora.
2019 by the very low low price of 34 billion USD
Thanks for bringing this up. I thought Redhat was long since closed source, so this is news to me. I've been aware of Redhat from back in the days when it came in a box, really from before there was widespread internet.
This is sad in a sentimental kind of way. My very first linux install was redhat 5.2. Now I'm running arch but it's sad to see redhat go in this direction.
First I hear of this, and first I hear of IBM having bought Red Hat.
i worked at red hat few years ago when they bought it. I got paid 6000 to leave by ibm :)
@@eddwinnas why leave?
@@zweitekonto9654 it was low paying at red hat and they offered money to anyone who left. I was itching to go for a while and work on my own personal projects.
You were hypnotized bro
I'm RHCE 5, 6. And when I heard this I think it's sucks. For example RHEL had issues with packages being up-to-date to present releases. For example Python, git, nodejs and so on. In the past we waited almost 6 months to get Python3 packages authorized by RH company. We been forced to uses Python2 before switchover to P3. Sometimes it's required by corporate policy to use only RH dedicated repository. And I think CentOS/Red Hat Developer had a lot valued freedom community which helped RH company a lot. So what the hell their doing? 🧐 Regarding IBM products it's different story. IBM LinuxONE or zLinux are different oriented products. Mainly on Power or Z-systems. Containerized or as VM.
We saw this coming ever since they stopped documenting their patches. Plus all their branding lawsuits in the early days.
I expect Ubuntu and Manjaro to do something similar in the future. They're both owned by big corpos who're gonna want to control their own operating system. Pop OS is a bit of a coin toss, as it's made by System 76.
I think it will backfire on Canonical if they do make it closed source. RH seems to be more valuable with people trying to copy RH for the 1:1 enterprise compatibility, but people don't need that for Ubuntu, they just want the stability and LTS. You still at least have Debian stable upstream as an alternative. Plus you have the whole snap fiasco turning people off from using Ubuntu, and locking down the code, will probably be the push to get people to abandon Ubuntu completely.
@@guyman7776you said it bro, the snap fiasco is one of the reasons why I moved to Mint. And now Debian 12 is looking like a very sexy option
@@guyman7776 Canonical dont learn any thing, if so they would make snaps open source,(if part of software is close source it is all close src).
they is moving really slow to a snap only distro, in a year or 2, they will be ubuntu core snap only and nothing else.
@@zeocamo Doesn't Flatpak come from Red Hat? Doesn't GNOME come from Red hat?
Also, claiming Ubuntu will be next while using Mint or Pop_OS. You do realise both of those distros are based on Ubuntu, right?
@@GeoNeilUK although POP_OS! Is a great distro, i am not using that, i am on arch and nixos, i can see why you think that, but not all Arch users say i use Arch btw. (i dont use flatpak or gnome)
Yes, some users of RHEL clones have already started testing and migrating to Debian
The only surprise here is that it didn't happen many years ago.
Redhat 7.2 was my first distro, slowly moved away from them as they dropped support for the older hardware I could actually afford
In defense of Red Hat, a lot of companies used Rocky and Alma strictly because they just didn't want to pay for the RHEL license.
This wouldn't be that big a deal for Red Hat except that a lot of these companies would go years and years using unpaid tools but when they'd run into issues they'd suddenly switch everything to RHEL and buy a license temporarily and try to get support.
This abused the support system and was a burden on them. Locking down the source only to those who get a binary from them means they can use their support resources only for their real customers.
That may still not be a good enough reason for more people, but it's a better one than what people suggest of Red-Hat: "it makes us more money mwhahaha we're so evil!"
Then just make more rules to be eligible for support or write your own close source OS
Frankly with modern tools and virtualization if you build your system in a reasonable way it's pretty trivial to switch to any distro, and perhaps even any OS if your software is portable. Nothing stops someone from having a problem buying RHEL and moving distros to get commercial support. Are you going to say this is abuse too? I really doubt this so called abuse cost them money, and I suspect the opposite.
I don't know if you work in industry or not, but lets not pretend like all support is equal when you just get a license. Pay more get more support, that's how it works. With most of these contracts, licenses, and support agreements these companies have you over a barrel, and they frequently use it. Courts continually rule in favor of companies even when they break their own SLAs. I really do not share any sympathy for IBM and RHEL if they're being "abused". It'd be trivial for them to change their support license as current events demonstrate.
There is no defense of Red Hat on this one. This is just the long term outcome of IBM influence.
@@fun_gussy bingo
Well, that means they gained additional money from Alma/Rocky existence.
I'm honestly more shocked it took IBM this long to go this route. I saw something like this coming from the first day they purchased Red Hat.
This is why having a variety of different distros is important.
Proprietary garbage😂, I love how straightforward you are
I was using RedHat as a desktop machine in 1997 running X11 where you had to manually edit the config file to set your resolution and refresh rate.
Canonical/Ubuntu already aroused !
They will all have to use Arch btw
Or Debian.
One of the two authentic ways of doing Linux.
I have been a very happy Fedora user for years. I hated it before and then i didn't. My second favorite distro is Debian. I guess it's time to go full in with Debian.
Just when I thought my distro-hopping was over...
I will always have a soft spot for Red Hat 6, as it was my first Linux distro I used on a desktop. Presently I'm rocking on my Debian 12 desktop. There are options within the GNU/Linux community.
I want to know how they're able to do this in the first place, and what needs to be done to stop it from happening again.
It was a four year plan to close source RedHat since IBM purchased them, seems like they are approximately a year ahead of schedule.
haha fyi, I work in IT as a security/systems analyst and I watch your videos, you have great information my guy.
That doesn't sound legal
I’m sorry, but this is click bate. First, RedHat is not closed source. All the source code is available via Centos stream. Second, Fedora is 100% open source. As a matter of fact, RedHat is a major contributor to the Linux community. Falsely accusing them of being priory garbage only hurt the community. They are just not letting companies copy their enterprise code, putting their name on it, and then selling it without doing work. Ubuntu Pro and SUSE enterprise have the same policies in place. I’d argue that RedHat is very generous. They will give you up 16 license for free for RHEL. I have subscribed to this channel since it had less than 1000 subs. It is sad to see the channel use hyperbolic click bate to get views.
I am an IT guy but use Windows Server 2022 (with updates disabled) and RHEL 9.2 (dev license) on my laptop as a daily driver. Daily driving means audi/video playing, browsing the web and general usage. Why?...simply..I like stable systems which just work everytime u use them. RHEL going closed source is really a big deal for companies which were using Centos and other RHEL derivatives for free. Hope they dont remove/ cancel the free self supported developer license . For me personally, I dont need any RHEL support so using dev license is the way to go to use RHEL at least for desktop users interested in using RHEL as desktop. If dev license is cancelled too then one cud shift to openSUSE / Debian .
I knew about RedHat since 1996 because my next door neighbor was running it...and he retired from IBM... He steered me to S.u.S.E. which steered me to Ubuntu and then to Mint...
I expected this to happen long before Red Hat was purchased by IBM.
I've been enjoying Fedora, but the package manager is so damn slow, this might just be the push I need to move on to Debian.
Debian 12 is very nice
@@janzibansi9218 Yes, I've got it running now. Packages are a little older, but feels pretty comfy.
@@WhatIsItReallyAboutThey're still newer & stable than Fedora or anything RHEL-based
@@AcidiFy574 Not true - at least here. for example, KDE is 27 on Debian, but 28 in Fedora.
A little more emphasis on openSUSE an SUSE. Open and innovative and with or without support. SUSE is a winner.
RHEL controls most servers of larger coporations (with SUSE Linux not being that far behind), who can afford to pay their subscription. Smaller businesses tend to use Ubuntu Server or Debian. This wouldn't affect the vast majority of users.
RHEL also offers a free version as well.
This is the most sensible reaction so far
Sorry Distrotube, according to your explanation, the source code is available at cost? Isn't this actually legal according to free software definitions? Because the free part isn't about price.
Can we discuss the legality here?
I notice "free" as in freedom usually demands free in price as well. I'm not sure if it is a legal thing though so don't quote me. I like FOSS and support it but this has always been a sticking point for me with the people in the fan club.
I make software, open source some and sell others and I want to make all Linux stuff but you get hated for wanting compensation.
I’m not an open source purist, but this news is very alarming. Our shop is a Linux shop and we have a commercial RedHat license so I doubt this is going to change anything for us. But for me personally, this is a great big red flag. I am not so sanguine about the probability that other Linux distros aren’t going to go in this direction. I think they will. The notion that Microsoft will buy Ubuntu is not based in paranoia. I predict with near certainty that they will, and that they are going to similarly close source Ubuntu.
All that said, there will always be a fully open version of Linux available. The question is how narrow will our choices get.
I was trying out Fedora when all this came out and it was a contributing factor in hitting delete in the old partition manager.
All the big players in the VFX industry use RHEL desktop like Pixar and Dreamworks. I'm running it at home right now on my own server.
I'm a sysadmin and thankfully we don't use RHEL. The closest we get are managed hardware appliances running CentOS etc.
Thanks for a good, informative video.
I mean, those who used RHEL for whatever reason (Enterprise, Business customers etc) wont care anyway. Even if RH went completely close for everybody. Because they are not interested in FOSS ethics and philosophy. They want to get their work done.
Is that actually allowed? Adding a separate agreement saying you won't redistribute the modified version directly contradicts the GPL.
RHE 3 crossed my path way back in the late 90's. It was so locked down and yet I could get in with admin/admin. I was able to see the entire network from there. It was hilarious. Luckily I am a good guy so I didn't do anything. Then passed them a sticky in the middle of the night telling them they needed to manage access better. In 24 hours they unlocked every computer. Now this was a system that held things that no one should have had access to. So it matters not how conscientious one is, black hats will always prevail through either ignorance or stupidity.
As someone who was a Solaris developer under the Oracle regime, I'll say it: this is surprising to me despite IBM's ownership. History has several examples of FOSS operating systems dipping their toes back into the proprietary closed-source world, and virtually none of them have been successful in those transitions. Oracle Solaris was certainly a notable example. I'm sure many Linux users will insist it was way past irrelevant by that time, but at least it had significant differentiation, both in terms of features (zones and ZFS) and intended platforms (Sun/Oracle systems, with some of the newer, larger database appliances being very interesting).
I don't have a ton of insight into why Solaris didn't flourish under Oracle, but a common sentiment among the devs was that Oracle simply had an easier time selling x86 systems with its own RHEL clone than the SPARC/Solaris systems (odd that they sort of competed with themselves, but hey, I guess you can do that when you're the size of Oracle). What does RHEL have? It's a Linux distro. It's not like they can sell proprietary kernel features, as far as I can tell (except maybe under the hood of some hosted cloud services where FOSS licenses don't come into play). Are they really expecting customers to pay for closed-source utility RPMs and such? Weren't they already doing that with some of their proprietary offerings that simply ran on top of RHEL? I just don't see the point. What is the value proposition? What makes support contracts for distros like RHEL attractive is not proprietary features, it's ongoing commitment to bug fixes, support tickets, security updates, etc. Closed-source makes virtually all of that harder to do. It just seems like a lose-lose to me. Maybe I'm not understanding IBM's plans, but I just don't see what they stand to gain out of this. FOSS is itself an attractive feature and makes for a good platform for all the proprietary, closed-source applications they want to sell. Unless they have some secret plan for a very specific killer feature that this enables, it seems like they're just following in Solaris' shoes.
Is that actually legal considering the GPL2 license? Wonder what Rocky/Alma/Oracle response will be..
Fedora is what red hat themselves runs as a desktop os internally, this is a good thing as it makes more linux users work on debian/ubuntu as the default linux distro
Video title is a lie. License for open source under GPL means that they have to provide the source to people the also provide they the distro to. if they are not providing the RHEL to people who are not paying customers or partners, then they don't need to provide source code. Annoying move, nonetheless.
Suse/OpenSuse is another group that will benefit from this too.
This only demonstrates the importance and wisdom with existing various Linux distros. 🙏🙏🙏