Photo : AlmaLinux Day, held on March 18, 2024 in Rust, Germany. Does that mean more Rust in the Linux kernel ? :-)

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    The reason this is a first is because AlmaLinux recently decided to stop being a bug for bug clone of RHEL. Good for them. As this shows, they are now actually free to add value.

    Rocky Linux cannot ship this patch unless RHEL does. Rocky cannot contribute anything by definition.

    • featured [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Well Rocky can contribute, but they’d have to send their patch to CentOS stream and hope it gets merged, then wait for Red Hat to implement the changes. So it’s more roundabout and ultimately is dependent on Red Hat

    • stuner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      That looks quite weird… RHEL 9.2 was patched in February. RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 have now been patched too, but RHEL 9 (9.3) is still vulnerable?

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s because almalinux is tuxcare, right? They have a long history of offering an alternate support stream for things IBM has grown bored of.

  • rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Nice and all, but…

    Projects leaching on the work of companies like that, “freeing the code” (which literally just means huge companies will not pay a cent for Linux in the future too) and adding their 2 cents, is not really a big effort.

    The same thing with other projects that “became nonfree” and where forked to “stay free”.

    If a license says “you can use it for free, but need to share profits over x$” it is free software in any way we should be concerned about it.

    • valveman@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Projects leaching on the work of companies like that, “freeing the code”.

      You mean it the other way, right? Because these companies you defend use the free labor of voluntary developers from the community, which spend hours and hours developing features, fixing bugs and what not, directly or indirectly. That’s how open source works.

      When these companies change the project license to a closed source one, they’re basically saying a big “f*** you” to the community. Forking the latest open source version of the repository is nothing more than an effort to keep things the way they were.

      huge companies will not pay a cent for Linux in the future

      Linux is FOSS, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you redistribute it without modifying the license. Android does that; every GNU/Linux distribution does that. That’s how it works.

      if a license says “you can use it for free, but need to share profits over x$”

      What you’re describing is “freeware”, what this post is discussing is " open source software". There’s a giant gap between the two.

      • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The issue started when Mr. Root Mean Square came up with the term “Free Software”. It should have been called “freedom respecting software” and we would not have to deal with people confusing free software with Free Software.

        • valveman@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, but there’s also the term “freeware”, which means closed source but free to use.

          I’ll edit my comment for clarity, thanks for the heads up.

    • gorysubparbagel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      Then by that logic, redhat is leeching off the work of the Linux kernel developers and the other Foss software in redhat

      • rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        They offer support for it and contribute a lot to all those projects. But I was mainly focused on projects restricting their license, RHEL is a complicated topic.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      Dafuq you talking about, son? RedHat isn’t selling FOSS as a product. They are essentially selling enterprise support for a specific collection of packages that are rolled into a Linux Distribution the distribute themselves, and is then backed with a slew of SLA and SLO contracts that back it. On top of that, their own tooling which they do open source is included with thos things. Why do you think Alma exists at all?

      • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        They do sell the specific collection, and even more so updates, as a product and restrict redistribution of that product by their customers.

        They do their upstream development in the open which is not required but mighty nice of them.

    • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      Companies like Redhat are a small price to pay for open source software to exist under capitalism. Would I prefer copyleft software not involve any money at all? Sure. But that’s not realistic when Linux is this big and complex. Big companies fund a lot of Linux’ development but we get free copy left use of it and that’s a good compromise for me.