He has worked for Western Electric Corporation, Aetna Life and Casualty, Bell Laboratories, Digital Equipment Corporation (Digital), VA Linux Systems, and Silicon Graphics (SGI). He was the CTO and ambassador of the now defunct computer appliance company Koolu.
Nobody is certain on this or a great many topics. Revealing our insecurities, doubts, and ignorances is the only way to alleviate them. So good on you sir! A tip ‘o my (red) fedora!
Now I'm not so sure of my opinion on this whole situation... I knew I shouldn't have replied to this
Nobody is certain on this or a great many topics. Revealing our insecurities, doubts, and ignorances is the only way to alleviate them. So good on you sir! A tip ‘o my (red) fedora!
Not exactly. First, a brief background: A distribution is composed of a whole bunch of pieces of software, all packaged in a way that makes it easy for the end user to install the software they...
the article made it sound like the RHEL downstream distros that Red Hat effectively killed would buy a copy of RHEL and then spin it off as a free distro to be used by however many users wanted it.
Not exactly.
First, a brief background:
A distribution is composed of a whole bunch of pieces of software, all packaged in a way that makes it easy for the end user to install the software they specifically want while remaining reasonably sure that everything will work together to make a functional system. There's a lot of work that goes into that packaging, over and above the work that went into writing the individual pieces of software.
For example, a given Linux distribution is likely to have a standardized structure to managing its configuration files. Most software will probably do “the right thing” by default, but some software will likely need to be patched to work in a way that aligns with the rest of the distribution.
Some software wants to put all of its files into a single directory and work from there, but a distribution will likely want to separate out the configuration files, the executable(s), the static data files, the dynamic data files, and the documentation.
There are other things, especially Red Hat's practice of backporting security bugfixes in order to keep software at a given version but also keeping it secure, but that should give an idea of the amount of extra work a distribution has to do to release software.
With that background in place:
Red Hat used to publish all of the files necessary to package software for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Anyone could take those files and build essentially-exact copies of the packages in RHEL. The full RHEL build, however, includes a number of trademarked things like the name “Red Hat” and various Red Hat logos, among other things. Several organizations did, however, take Red Hat's published files, do a little extra work to strip out all trademarked and otherwise-problematic materials, and then publish the result as a RHEL-compatible distribution.
Red Hat has taken a few steps recently that had the effect, if not the intent (but probably also the intent) of interfering with people's ability to build these RHEL-compatible distributions. The most recent step was to stop publishing all of the files necessary to build RHEL. Those files are still available to RHEL customers, but not to the public at large. The intent is to prevent potential customers from using something RHEL-compatible without having paid Red Hat to cover the costs of putting RHEL together. The newly-private build files come with a license that prevents Red Hat customers from distributing the files to others (and, thus preventing others from continuing to build RHEL-compatible distributions). There are some open questions about whether the restrictive license on the build files is a violation of the GPL, but that's a topic for a different comment.
So it wasn't that people used to buy a single copy of RHEL and then cloned it. It was that Red Hat used to publish the build files for anyone to use, without paying Red Hat anything. The general view was that Red Hat was making enough money off support contracts to cover both their costs of building and supporting the distribution. Included in that view was the assumption that no-cost RHEL-compatible distributions were good for Red Hat because they broadened the base of people used to using the RHEL platform. Those RHEL-ecosystem users might then be converted into paying customers when they wanted to spend money on support issues rather than spending their own employees' time.
Obviously, Red Hat has decided that prevailing view is incorrect and that restricting access to their build files is a better option for preserving income.
I understand this wasn't the focus of your answer, but this was slightly inaccurate and some of the opposition to the changes stem from an inaccurate understanding so I want to call it out. RHEL...
The newly-private build files come with a license that prevents Red Hat customers from distributing the files to others (and, thus preventing others from continuing to build RHEL-compatible distributions).
I understand this wasn't the focus of your answer, but this was slightly inaccurate and some of the opposition to the changes stem from an inaccurate understanding so I want to call it out. RHEL isn't preventing distribution of sources; they can't because of the GPL. They'll just stop allowing you to be a future customer and get the next version of RHEL. This has almost the same effect, but it's different enough that it could make the difference between a GPL violation or not.
Another thing your comment didn't touch on was that there were distributions that took the RHEL sources and created copies of RHEL for distribution. Then, companies would sell support for these "community" distributions. It's very likely in my opinion that IBM would not have cared if community distributions existed if they didn't suddenly have to compete with downstream for the exact same product.
"preservation of income" implies maintenance of a status quo. My suggestion, a somewhat more cynical take, is that IBM wants to gain additional income, and that that additional income is...
"preservation of income" implies maintenance of a status quo.
My suggestion, a somewhat more cynical take, is that IBM wants to gain additional income, and that that additional income is greed-based, improperly ignores the benefit IBM (and Red Hat) has received from the open source community, is unsustainable, and indicative of the social damage caused by capitalism.
My origin story of first using linux was due to buying a book titled something like "Linux for Dummies" (from either Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstores) which came with a copy of Redhat Linux...
My origin story of first using linux was due to buying a book titled something like "Linux for Dummies" (from either Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstores) which came with a copy of Redhat Linux on CDrom, and was authored by none other than Jon "Maddog" Hall!!
Not at all related but my first experience of using linux was when Windows Vista dropped and everyone was unhappy so my mom opened the PC case, installed a hard drive, and installed a version of...
Not at all related but my first experience of using linux was when Windows Vista dropped and everyone was unhappy so my mom opened the PC case, installed a hard drive, and installed a version of openSUSE on it. To this day I still find it to be one of the most surprising things she ever did with the "family" computer (was just the two of us) as I was typically the tinkerer while she typically wanted me to just leave things alone.
Hi @Kawa and sorry for my delayed reply...you have so many interesting tidbits that i had wished to reply sooner! :-) Actually, after i played around with redhat linux from the book i mentioned, i...
Hi @Kawa and sorry for my delayed reply...you have so many interesting tidbits that i had wished to reply sooner! :-)
...my first experience of using linux was when Windows Vista dropped and everyone was unhappy...
Actually, after i played around with redhat linux from the book i mentioned, i was in the same camp of being dissatisfied with Windows Vista...and then, it started seizing up my machine...well, oh boy, did i get frustrated...that eventually the combo of the book and windows vista droive me to eventually adopt linux as my daily driver for personal machine (though forced to use windows at dayjobs).
...everyone was unhappy so my mom opened the PC case, installed a hard drive, and installed a version of openSUSE on it...
Mom saved the day!!!!! That is awesome in so many ways!
...I was typically the tinkerer while she typically wanted me to just leave things alone...
This is even more credit for you Mom in that she sounds like she went against her normal behavior to help save the day; truly and amazingly awesome!!!
Reading this article educated me on some pieces of FOSS that I previously did not know. And I'm thankful for that That said, I'm not sure it actually addresses the elephant in the room: under the...
Reading this article educated me on some pieces of FOSS that I previously did not know. And I'm thankful for that
That said, I'm not sure it actually addresses the elephant in the room: under the terms of the GPL, are Red Hat even allowed to do what they're trying to do with locking down downstream distros?
background on the author if anyone's not familiar with him:
Nobody is certain on this or a great many topics. Revealing our insecurities, doubts, and ignorances is the only way to alleviate them. So good on you sir! A tip ‘o my (red) fedora!
Not exactly.
First, a brief background:
A distribution is composed of a whole bunch of pieces of software, all packaged in a way that makes it easy for the end user to install the software they specifically want while remaining reasonably sure that everything will work together to make a functional system. There's a lot of work that goes into that packaging, over and above the work that went into writing the individual pieces of software.
For example, a given Linux distribution is likely to have a standardized structure to managing its configuration files. Most software will probably do “the right thing” by default, but some software will likely need to be patched to work in a way that aligns with the rest of the distribution.
Some software wants to put all of its files into a single directory and work from there, but a distribution will likely want to separate out the configuration files, the executable(s), the static data files, the dynamic data files, and the documentation.
There are other things, especially Red Hat's practice of backporting security bugfixes in order to keep software at a given version but also keeping it secure, but that should give an idea of the amount of extra work a distribution has to do to release software.
With that background in place:
Red Hat used to publish all of the files necessary to package software for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Anyone could take those files and build essentially-exact copies of the packages in RHEL. The full RHEL build, however, includes a number of trademarked things like the name “Red Hat” and various Red Hat logos, among other things. Several organizations did, however, take Red Hat's published files, do a little extra work to strip out all trademarked and otherwise-problematic materials, and then publish the result as a RHEL-compatible distribution.
Red Hat has taken a few steps recently that had the effect, if not the intent (but probably also the intent) of interfering with people's ability to build these RHEL-compatible distributions. The most recent step was to stop publishing all of the files necessary to build RHEL. Those files are still available to RHEL customers, but not to the public at large. The intent is to prevent potential customers from using something RHEL-compatible without having paid Red Hat to cover the costs of putting RHEL together. The newly-private build files come with a license that prevents Red Hat customers from distributing the files to others (and, thus preventing others from continuing to build RHEL-compatible distributions). There are some open questions about whether the restrictive license on the build files is a violation of the GPL, but that's a topic for a different comment.
So it wasn't that people used to buy a single copy of RHEL and then cloned it. It was that Red Hat used to publish the build files for anyone to use, without paying Red Hat anything. The general view was that Red Hat was making enough money off support contracts to cover both their costs of building and supporting the distribution. Included in that view was the assumption that no-cost RHEL-compatible distributions were good for Red Hat because they broadened the base of people used to using the RHEL platform. Those RHEL-ecosystem users might then be converted into paying customers when they wanted to spend money on support issues rather than spending their own employees' time.
Obviously, Red Hat has decided that prevailing view is incorrect and that restricting access to their build files is a better option for preserving income.
I understand this wasn't the focus of your answer, but this was slightly inaccurate and some of the opposition to the changes stem from an inaccurate understanding so I want to call it out. RHEL isn't preventing distribution of sources; they can't because of the GPL. They'll just stop allowing you to be a future customer and get the next version of RHEL. This has almost the same effect, but it's different enough that it could make the difference between a GPL violation or not.
Another thing your comment didn't touch on was that there were distributions that took the RHEL sources and created copies of RHEL for distribution. Then, companies would sell support for these "community" distributions. It's very likely in my opinion that IBM would not have cared if community distributions existed if they didn't suddenly have to compete with downstream for the exact same product.
Or, cynically, IBM decided it could make more profit from Red Hat by locking down the build files.
What exactly is the difference between those two things? What would make one more cynical than the other?
"preservation of income" implies maintenance of a status quo.
My suggestion, a somewhat more cynical take, is that IBM wants to gain additional income, and that that additional income is greed-based, improperly ignores the benefit IBM (and Red Hat) has received from the open source community, is unsustainable, and indicative of the social damage caused by capitalism.
My origin story of first using linux was due to buying a book titled something like "Linux for Dummies" (from either Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstores) which came with a copy of Redhat Linux on CDrom, and was authored by none other than Jon "Maddog" Hall!!
Not at all related but my first experience of using linux was when Windows Vista dropped and everyone was unhappy so my mom opened the PC case, installed a hard drive, and installed a version of openSUSE on it. To this day I still find it to be one of the most surprising things she ever did with the "family" computer (was just the two of us) as I was typically the tinkerer while she typically wanted me to just leave things alone.
Hi @Kawa and sorry for my delayed reply...you have so many interesting tidbits that i had wished to reply sooner! :-)
Actually, after i played around with redhat linux from the book i mentioned, i was in the same camp of being dissatisfied with Windows Vista...and then, it started seizing up my machine...well, oh boy, did i get frustrated...that eventually the combo of the book and windows vista droive me to eventually adopt linux as my daily driver for personal machine (though forced to use windows at dayjobs).
Mom saved the day!!!!! That is awesome in so many ways!
This is even more credit for you Mom in that she sounds like she went against her normal behavior to help save the day; truly and amazingly awesome!!!
Reading this article educated me on some pieces of FOSS that I previously did not know. And I'm thankful for that
That said, I'm not sure it actually addresses the elephant in the room: under the terms of the GPL, are Red Hat even allowed to do what they're trying to do with locking down downstream distros?