• Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that “let’s all abandon RHEL so it becomes irrelevant” is the appropriate response here. It’s a matter of freedom and principles. If RHEL exists, a compatible, free and unencumbered alternative should be allowed to exist as well.

      RedHat thinks they shouldn’t exist, and is trying to maneuver within legal limits to ensure they don’t exist. It’s not that I agree with RedHat that the compatible clones shouldn’t exist. It’s that I think RedHat’s actions are duplicitous enough that we should no longer see RHEL compatibility as a goal to care about. Much the same way Google has taken actions to distance itself from a dependence on Java after Oracle went all APIs-are-patentable rampage. Why engage with an entity who has a stated goal of ending your existence?

      Also, Alma doesn’t have a business model in the same way that Debian doesn’t have a business model. The Alma Linux OS Foundation is a non-profit organization.

      I knew there was a foundation behind Alma but hadn’t looked into them too much, as I was already thinking of continuing to target RHEL compatibility may have poor business continuity after they killed CentOS as a free RHEL clone.

        • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That depends on which “we” you talk about. Personally, yes, I have moved everything that I had away from RHEL-derivatives towards Debian after the CentOS debacle 2 years ago, and I would recommend anyone else to do the same.

          So we’re in “violent” agreement.

          it’s also a matter of principle: “we”, as in the community as a whole, can’t let this stand.

          Right. We just have a difference of opinion on how to stand against RedHat’s actions here.