Are Red Hat / Fedora users actually brain damaged? Why do they constantly suck the wiener of IBM and support software that is not free?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Are Red Hat?
My workplace chose this distro
I would rather use Ubuntu server
*BARF*
>uh but what about my free softwarino?????
Don't care. It just werks.
pic isnt windoez doe?
Are you implying Linus Torvalds has brain damage?
What does Fedora have installed that's not free? Honest question.
Some kernel drivers, which makes freetard purists seethe uncontrollably.
Things I like about fedora that are hard to find in other distros:
> Funding secured(RHEL funds it 100%)
> As long as there is group interest you can make a SIG and provide what you want under fedora.
> It's actually well organized with modern website frontends(discuss, hyprkitty)
> Generally Redhat keeps their hands off(RHEL cares about servers and enterprise, most packages from fedora do not even touch RHEL, or frankly about gaming/desktop for that matter)
> Goals are well laid out. With proper discussion threads and summaries.
> Copr is a neat alternative to ubuntu ppas. Has integration to discuss which is neat.
> New packages, new kernels, new design ideas(arch can't push users as much like with the last one because its far more customizable)
> Both Rolling and Release based
> It can actually update itself to a new release with a graphical tool(which a lot of linux distros struggle with, see Debian)
> Cool experiments like silverblue
Things fedora that need work:
> Wiki, its just not as good as the things they have on Arch and Gentoo(Gentoo is the best one)
> I think the focus should shift to KDE, discussed it with some people in the project too.
Problems:
> RedHat/IBM
I like fedora, i don't like how redhat has been behaving.
firmware. Enough to get you running.(networking, printers, microcode)
the rest of the firmware and proprietary programs are in rpmfusion which is not part of the fedora project for obvious legal reasons.
In that regard you could say that standard Debian 12 and Fedora install are just as proprietary.
dorkizoids in tech get an IBM hard on first because the buckling spring keyboards and retro israelitetubers, and then eventually they’ll read the arch wiki on why systemd and agree because arch is for REAL nerdos, not those normalgays who use other shit
you know its true
What the absolute frick are you talking about? RH distros are so autistic about free software, they even go a step further and protect you from accidentally installing software you don't have a valid patent license to use, ootb.
>Are Red Hat / Fedora users actually brain damaged?
>Why do they constantly suck the wiener of IBM
It has fewer sores than Microsoft wiener and it was very hard to get them to quit sucking that.
Comes with selinux and firewall enabled by default. Good enough for me.
Unfortunate that this is true. Basically no enterprise Linux comes close to that.
Why is it that IQfy thinks of everything in terms of wiener, sucking wiener, getting fricked, wiener sores.. I don't understand.
> you now realize why the software dev space is full of "femboys"
I use software that works. You can't stop thinking about sucking wiener. Go figure.
>free
There's bigger issues to fry with Red Hat and IBM than them adding in closed source shit, like their open support of the craziest anti-white beliefs othewise only shared by Black Israelites and their hiring/firing practices being in direct breach of the civil rights act.
Looks like Red Hat manages to piss off just about every flavour of schizo that exists.
>schizo
lmao can't pull that tactic when their internal documents were leaked and their internal slack response to it leaked.
It reads like a fever dream concocted up by extreme racists. They claim for instance that the ancient greeks were spirituality and written language by ancient sub-saharans, and that whites are more or less inherently evil.
Then they recorded the IBM CEO explaining how managers would get denied bonuses and get fired if they didn't stop hiring whiteys and hire more minorities, explicitly mentioned asians aren't allowed at all, and then the Red Hat CEO echoed that sentiment by saying they had already fired managers who weren't on-board with racial discrimination.
At first they pretended it wasn't real then screenshots from their internal Slack dropped where they were defending those practices and freaking out that they went public. (even mentioning the "issue" that the civil rights act doesn't have an out for being racist to non-minorities)
Riveting story, I'm sure. Here's the thing though - I don't care. It's just some software on my computer which does what I need it to do, for free. Feel free to continue with your schizo meltdown, thoughbeit.
>i dont care
yup thats all i needed to know that you are a homosexual piece of shit
No, sorry, you're right. Let me uninstall my OS right now. There, it's done. Wait, what do you mean trannies and sjws still rule the world and everything is still fricked?
First it's "schizo" and now it's "who cares".
Your tactics are practically jurassic.
>"who cares"
great reading comprehension
>tactics
definite schizo
This. Nobody should be using Redhat after their Allyship Commandments leaked and was confirmed. One of the most disgusting companies in all of human existence.
>their open support of the craziest anti-white beliefs
name 3 entities in the software that don't do this.
Durgasoft
GrapheneOS
Sun Microsystems
>Sun Microsystems
Half of Sun is at Oxide and they are steeped in anti-White leftist cuckoldry.
>Oxide
What do they do
Oxide Computer Company. Basically Sun Microsystems but rewrite in Rust.
What the hell is durgasoft?
You may not like it, Sar, but Durgasoft Solutions is by far the largest in-house educator of Java and Python.
SQLite.
NirSoft.
A good chunk of the people making interesting stuff are either some form of libertarian, conservative or disillusioned lib who isn't comfortable with that stuff.
In fact I tend to associate it with big corporations and people who hide behind politics in order to NOT to do actual programming work.
>In fact I tend to associate it with big corporations and people who hide behind politics in order to NOT to do actual programming work.
This. Most people with fringe political views (left or right) are useless eaters.
This man has never let me down.
That's why he's Dictator for Life.
>muh open sores
I doubt you do anything with the software in the first place. 90% of FOSS diehards just like the idea of free software, they don't use it to their advantage.
Look at Linux, all that freedom and people still choose to use shit made by other people.
I like how "free software" shills love to quote Stallman saying you can make money from it, but as soon as someone actually does it it's "against the spirit of the licence"
Linux is pretty much Redhat at this point
Guess that explains why it started sucking so much.
Red Hat is evil. Closed source, funding gnome, pushing the troony agenda, anti-White training sessions, ...
Why are you mad though? You cry to the thought of X corporation making profit out of Linux and think everything should be free and suddenly people who has never given a shit about computers in general will march on the street saying "thanks to the basement dwellers who gave us an operating system that will fix everything even though they contribute almost nothing compared to corporations all over the world"?
Wake up kid, most foss projects require funding, just because funding comes from a corporation doesn't make it bad software, in the end, most things Fedora pushes on, are adopted by your completely "community driven" distros.
The Linux Foundation prostitutes itself to corporations, and they pay Linus Torvalds. Any current big open standards is widely used and influenced by corporations, not everyone can be vaxri or terry.
https://www.khronos.org/
Being more serious, Fedora is the goat if you want to learn about the real Linux development cycle and the real impact of 100% foss solutions, proposals are made, discussed and voted on. In the end, Arch, Debian, Gentoo are pretty much the same, they have a committee that makes decisions on what to admit into your distro, but I don't think Arch and Debian users even know who is in their distro's committee.
I understood Red Hat's model for awhile but as of last year they do seem to be buttholes since they established that you can't access the source to RHEL unless you're a paid owner and even then it's forbidden by license to disclose.
>you can't access the source to RHEL unless you're a paid owner and even then it's forbidden by license to disclose
I'm a free "owner" and I can access the source right now. If you tell me which part you're interested in, I'll gladly share it with you - after all, the GPL guarantees me this freedom. How do you think they'll know I was the one who shared it? You think they watermark each line of code or something? You clearly haven't thought about any of this, you're just parroting memes.
I think it's the other way around.
They can't stop people from sharing it but if someone is found to be using it in a production environment in contravention of their license (i.e. they compiled it and ran it outside of having a valid license with Red Hat) they're open to litigation.
You think? Where does it say that in the licence agreement? Again, how would they know who the source came from? Why does it even matter when it's accessible to free users? And isn't that exactly what Oracle are doing? If so, why aren't IBM suing them for it?
This is because of IBM, IBM ruins everything it touches.
If you think Red Hat and corpo related software is evil, you shouldn't even be using computers nor internet to begin with.
'ate Red Hat, but I'm got to admit Fedora is very nice.
They are simps and idiots.they are just like windows/mac users but they just wan't to be different.
good morning sirs!
They are the only ones creating free software, suse used to created proprietary shit and now only leeches of red hat and canonical still creates proprietary shit like snaps
Then why do they make autists seethe so hard?
IBM purchased them, had them destroy CentOS, and made source code to RHEL only available to people paying for RHEL when it used to be public. They then said that they can refuse to sell RHEL to people sharing the GPL licensed RHEL source code. Thus violating of the spirit of the GPL. Hating Red Hat is a red herring, the villain is and always will be IBM.
>only available to people paying for RHEL
you can use RHEL without paying and get the source code just the same
>They then said that they can refuse to sell RHEL to people sharing the GPL licensed RHEL source code. Thus violating of the spirit of the GPL.
they can refuse to do business with whomever they want. there is no law or "spirit" being violated here.
You can use it only in certain configurations or setups without paying, accessing the source now is walled behind this agreement. Part of that agreement includes the terms to not share the source code to people not also in the scope of this agreement. Red Hat is operating in a legal grey area as RHEL is GPLv2 licensed. GPLv2 verbatim says:
> Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
The last part is important, by enforcing a clause to not freely distribute you are imposing a further restriction on the recipients rights as outlined in the GPL. Even if this were deemed "legal" it is a loophole in violation of the spirit and intention of the original license. This is why they are so hated by the Linux community.
>You can use it only in certain configurations or setups without paying
okay, what does that have to do with GPL?
>accessing the source now is walled behind this agreement
no, accessing the source is guaranteed to every user of the software as per the GPL.
>Part of that agreement includes the terms to not share the source code to people not also in the scope of this agreement
show me that part
>it is a loophole in violation of the spirit and intention of the original license
as far as Torvalds is concerned, GPLv2 is working as intended
>okay, what does that have to do with GPL?
Nothing, I was pointing out the misuse of the word "free." There is a cost associated, the agreement of a burdensome additional license to download the software. My gripe and most Linux user's gripes aren't with RHEL costing money, it is abuse of user's who exercise their GPL rights.
>no, accessing the source is guaranteed to every user of the software as per the GPL.
Ever user needs a Red Hat account to download the software, and has to "renew." This is regardless of if they are paying or not. Termination of your Red Hat account is a termination of your ability to download updates, or acquire new versions. They won't stop you from distributing code as that is your GPL right, but doing so violates their EULA so when you go to renew or acquire a new version they will prevent this. This is a round about way to still allow your GPL rights (so they don't get sued), but also is retaliating against you for exercising your rights. Hence why I use the words "loophole," "legally grey," and "violates the spirit of the agreement."
>show me that part
Section g page 4: https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix_1_Global_English_20230309.pdf
I will however contend they didn't do this to "kill open source." They did this to stop Oracle from profiting off their work, and in all fairness Oracle is far worse.
This, the so called Linux "community" got mad at a corpo strategy to stop other corpos from profiting off their work, they can keep their market share but at least they have to either be Red Hat clients or pay their own development. Rocky Linux was super aggressive, and they're just as corporate as Red Hat. In the end, Red Hat market is still growing, the consequence is the options diversified.
Yeah. No warning bells rang at all, when Oracle suddenly was looking like the good guy. It was all corporations using community appeal to cash in on an unpopular business decision. Even SUSE, who didn't have a RHEL clone.
>the misuse of the word "free."
there is no "misuse". it is quite obvious that i meant "free as in free beer", like most people who aren't mentally ill would agree.
>There is a cost associated, the agreement of a burdensome additional license to download the software
just like free beer isn't ackschchually free, because it might result in a headache the next morning? you are a fricking clown.
>They won't stop you from distributing code as that is your GPL right, but doing so violates their EULA
all i see in that agreement is about splitting subscription services, nothing about distributing source code
>when you go to renew or acquire a new version they will prevent this
do you have any documented proof of this actually happening?
>Hence why I use the words "loophole," "legally grey," and "violates the spirit of the agreement."
you could have just said "that's just like, my opinion, bro"
do you boycott dbus?
I actually tried using it,, Red hat is moronic
>tried using it
You couldn't use it then? Wouldn't that make you the moronic one?
Because it is our responsibility to support our transfolk brothers and sisters.