How SUSE Is Replacing Red Hat as the Linux and Open Source Enterprise Standard-Bearer - FOSS Force
fossforce.com
SUSE seems to be poised to benefit from Red Hat's errors around CentOS and the availability of RHEL source code.

It’s become clear to many that Red Hat’s recent missteps with CentOS and the availability of RHEL source code indicate that it’s fallen from its respected place as “the open organization.” SUSE seems to be poised to benefit from Red Hat’s errors. We connect the dots.

    • Auzy@beehaw.org
      3·
      4 months ago

      But you probably trust them for every other project like pipewire and such?

      In practice, Linux is that it is today thanks to Redhat.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        2·
        4 months ago

        They don’t own pipewire, samba or any other community project. They just help fund and develop them

        • Auzy@beehaw.org
          2·
          4 months ago

          Pipewire is developed by a Redhat employee… A lot of projects are including policykit… No they don’t own it, and yeah, they’re all open source and are freely used by the community

          From my experience with development, a lot of these projects primarily succeed because they have a lot of backing. Also, someone needs to start them off, and a lot of these projects are also started by redhat

        • LeFantome@programming.dev
          1·
          4 months ago

          They do not own it because of their commitment to not just Open Source but ironically the GPL. So the large number of projects they have founded and the larger number of projects are the force behind are not “owned” by them.

          They could have “owned” a tonne of the software almost every Linux user uses ( including Guix and Debian ).

          This is precisely why it sounds so wrong to my ears when talk about Red Hat as above. Few facts. Lots of name calling.

      • digdilem@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        Linux is that it is today thanks to Redhat.

        Mmm, maybe - but only if you allow that the same can be said for the tens of thousands of other companies and individuals who have contributed.

        • Auzy@beehaw.org
          2·
          4 months ago

          Absolutely it can.

          But Redhat is a huge contributor

          The biggest threat that Linux faces isn’t from Microsoft or other companies. Over the past 30 years, I’ve noticed it is actually from the community. I’ve seen so many cases where the community blows things out of proportion and scares off developers. It sucks. Linux and open source would be so much more successful if we didn’t constantly make open source toxic for companies

          Poor people like Lennart Poettering get shat on constantly too. He could get a much better paying job

          Even right now… VSCode. It’s open source and MIT. People are STILL crapping on Microsoft and saying stuff like “oh wait for the enshittification”, instead of thanking them, or encouraging them for more

          It’s bonkers… There’s so much negative reinforcement out there that it’s scaring people away

          • digdilem@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            You are right.

            It’s human nature emboldened by freedom, of course. Codes of Practice help, but can’t change the freedom that comes from entitlement and anonymity.

            But on balance, there’s an awful lot of genuine people doing good, respectfully and politely.

        • LeFantome@programming.dev
          11·
          4 months ago

          What other company or individual can the same be said of?

          He did not say “shared a two-line bug fix one time”. The claim is that Red Hat is almost uniquely important in the Open Source ecosystem. Their source code contributions and / or the number of significant project that they have founded are evidence of this.

          Can you name even a single company with the same impact? You certainly cannot name tens of thousands.

          Often, when somebody moves the goal posts to avoid addressing an argument head on, it is to intentionally mislead. I hope that is not the case here.