I am not concerned at all, mostly because I do not think that they have taken any anti-user actions recently.
There is no circumstance, where I as a user, either as a personal user or in my professional capacity as someone running production systems, am affected by their source code decision. It’s only an issue if I decide I want to release a Green Hat Linux AND I want to be their customer.
The GPL does not force them to do business with me, and it does NOT require them to distribute source to me if they did not distribute the software to me. Many people may consider this move against the spirit of the GPL, and I think that’s what is causing most of the anger. Well maybe it’s time for a new GPL then that codifies that and explicitly says that, and start the herculean effort of driving adoption of that new license. It didn’t go well for GPLv3 or AGPL.
Now the Fedora telemetry proposal… is just that, a proposal. They are being transparent about “hey we are considering this, what do y’all think?”. Well, they’re certainly getting feedback on what the community thinks about that.
Here, people are angry that they are even considering the idea of telemetry. This is understandable. People treat telemetry like it’s a dirty word, because Microsoft and co. have made it so. Telemetry can be used for nefarious purposes, there is no doubt about that.
I believe that telemetry can be a good thing when it is done correctly. The question of whether the box should be checked by default is an important one, they need to be careful that users actually understand and having it enabled is an informed decision and not something they click past without comprehending. As long as the data collected is restricted, strictly filtered to avoid fingerprinting and leaking user data, this can be used to improve the software. Without any data on how your users experience your software, you are flying blind and throwing darts at your codebase trying to make improvements. The people filing bugs are usually not representative of the average user or their experience. Basic information like “does anyone even use this” or “how reliable is this feature” can help them prioritize their efforts.
I’ll take a trust but verify approach on this. The client side code of Fedora is all open source, so if I have concerns I can take a look at exactly what it is doing and raise the alarm if there’s problems. I’m sure someone will make a Fedora De-telemetrified Spin I can switch to in that case. After all Fedora is not RHEL, their source issue is orthogonal to this one.
If you made it this far, you may think I made some reasonable points… or you think I’m on Red Hat’s payroll (I’m not). Well, I gave it straight as asked, this is how I feel. I’m a user if both RHEL and Fedora and I’m not planning to change that anytime soon.
I absolutely agree with everything you pointed out here. Fedora has been my go-to distro for awhile now and I’m gonna ride the Fedora wagon till the very end.
Fuck that noise. There is no reason to support repeated practices which violate the spirit of open source. There are plenty of decent choices out there which are not fedora and I wish people would use them instead of this ibm nonsense.
Not op, but if I’m honest for a laptop user who needs up to date packages. Fedora is the only distro I’ve used which is both stable and user friendly.
An excellent example is when i had Arch installed (both Manjaro and later EndevourOS) when I connected HDMI it never switched over to the new audio source. And whenever I did switch it, it would always go back to the built in speakers if I was to unplug and replug it.
Never had this as an issue in Fedora since it always remembers my last configuration.
Have you tried tumbleweed? As someone who uses both Fedora (or more accurately Nobara) and tumbleweed, my laptop experience on tumbleweed has actually been slightly better on tumbleweed.
Ever since the whole RHEL meltdown here I looked into alternatives if fedora stops getting support. So I’ve tried tumble weed in a VM.
From my initial impression it’s on par with fedora for most things. But a complete lack of community run repos like copr makes it hard for me to switch to right now. Especially since I need XPadNeo support.
However if I was to distort hop again this would be the one I move to next, at least at this time.
deleted by creator
I am not worried at all. Fedora and CentOS Stream are upstream of RHEL and I don’t see them giving up community-driven development in either of those projects.
I guess Debian had it right all along. Free and Open Source Software is important.
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.
The Red Hat controversy has popped up a lot lately but this is the first time I’ve seen this perspective. It’s the the actual reason behind the change? Was there a distro particularly guilty of doing this?
I think we haven’t seen this perspective is because it’s not a good take on things. After IBM bought RH they killed CentOS which was bug compatible with RHEL. A lot of devs used CentOS to be able to easily ensure compatability with RHEL. RH replaced CentOS with CentOS stream which is not bug compatible with RHEL. The community was able to move past this blunder thanks to Rocky and ALMA “rebuilding” RHEL in the spirit of the old CentOS.
Now RH has killed off the ability for the community to build a free bug compatible distro and instead want devs to register for 16 (free) RHEL testing licenses. No other major distro that I know of does this.
I’m not a dev but it seems like a good way to lose support for your platform. If you want to make money and kill clones make your distro free but charge for official support.
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.
One of the best comments on it that I’ve seen. Kudos to you.
Redhat develops a ton and probably wouldn’t care about a free downstream done by the community but taking their hard work and doing nothing except “support” is just cannibalizing RHEL. Don’t blame them honestly.
I’m choosing to divest and look for more opportunities to help community ran distros to better fill that niche. Maybe NixOS or Guix as system os and rke2 and flatpak for the rest of services and apps.
Not even a little bit.
Red Hat controls Fedora, anyone saying Fedora is independent is just spouting nonsense.
I’ve been on Fedora all this time because I loved Red Hat. Oh, how wrong I was.
When kernel-0.96 came public, i checked it out on my Amiga as it was released for Motorola chips as m68k … and still is :)
Then RedHat came with their first distro, so i had it running on a Motorola 68060 for some time. It was the swap from i386 to i686 and later, with Vesa local bus, my Amiga lost the performance race. Then, a good friend gifted me an i686 PC. WindowsXP was on it and boah, what a crazy shit that was. Filenames and libraries had stupid names and in a file hirarchy, everything was just dumb there, so installed RedHat on that and since then it was all good.
Fedora came, RedHat closed their enterprise buisness sector and then we had Fedora. Up until doday im using it and enjoy the community, wich has a very scientific and innovative spirit. Fedora was always one of those distros, going new ways on a stable and solid base, thanks to RedHat.
Even if RedHat would drop out completely with their Fedora support - wich will never happen - Fedora would be mature enuff to survive. Should Fedora nontheless go for another path wich im not happy with, ill change, but it does not look like that
So nope, im not worried a single bit^^
If the time comes, that Fedora doesn’t fit me, I will go back to good old Debian.
It inspired me to move on. I’m running OpenSUSE now. I don’t really want to be involved in RedHat-related products in any way. Between redhat and the talk of telemetry, I’m out.
I switched after getting into a boot stuck after an update. Don’t regret it until now.
By default you can always roll back to the last working version from boot menu.
IDK, I don’t use Fedora anymore and all the redhat problems lol using RPM sounds meh
As someone who hasn’t really been following, what anti-user decisions are those?
I don’t care about it at all. If you want freedom from corporations, use community owned distros.
I don’t give a shit about fedora but I’m very worried about the future of Linux as a whole, red hat has an undisputable importance in the Linux ecossistem and these movements maybe are a signal that IBM don’t give a fuck about that
