That doesn’t sound good to me. The company I work for made the decision to stick with a RHEL compatible distro and chose AlmaLinux. I was more in favor of Ubuntu myself.
Maybe we are not too far down the road with Alma and still have a chance to change course.
I agree - but - nevertheless, RHEL is f–king everywhere I support, RHEL and OEL… All 4 of my main customers are running these (pezzo di merda!).
I’d vastly prefer to run server loads on Ubuntu server, I don’t know why people screw up their faces when you mention Ubuntu either, I quite like it, as desktop and a server.
Some “architect” with barely any understanding of UNIX or Linux, decided that Ubuntu needs to go (I admit, 18.04 does need to go - what I’d do is clone the VM to a new one, then do-release-upgrade and ensure the application it’s hosting is still working - too easy, and easier to trouble-shoot package dependancy issues than RPM or YUM or DNF IMHO) and be replaced with RHEL.
I have another customer, with a bunch of REL servers, they have no internet access, they have no Satellite or Spacewalk - so they have NEVER EVER been patched… and they’re like approx 10x over their licensed allocation of seats anyway…
“Oh wait, but we want commercial support for our Linux servers!” I could count on one hand the number of tickets I’ve logged with Red Hat, and NEVER have they provided a working solution anyway… Pointless…
Absolutely agree. Everyone has their bias. Ford vs Chevy type of thing. I freely admit I don’t care for Apple, but they must be doing something right. There are tons of users out there.
Thankfully I am not in that exact situation, but I did just replace a RHEL 5.9 server sooooo.
Exactly. Preaching to the choir brother.
@Doron_Beit-Halahmi ,
I thought RHEL code was gpl licensed.
Is it not illegal to restrict source code access?
This explains it a bit more :
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/14fcy0i/comment/joztw9p/?context=3
More confusion.
It is supposed to be very simple… if it is open source, the source code has to be freely available.
I wonder how long it’ll take projects to notice this behavior and forbid Red Hat from redistributing their project.
I only stopped to wonder today, how this will affect Oracle with Oracle Linux, and Amazon, with Amazon Linux? Surely they already pay Red Hat big $$$ and won’t be affected?
When I was running stuff in EC2, Amazon Linux just made the most sense, and I think it was shellshock, they (Amazon) had a fix about 24 hours later, but it took Oracle more than a week! Didn’t have, or manage any Red Hat EL back then, so I don’t know how timely Red Hat were…
There have been some good things come out of RedHat, but systemd and restricting access to source code are not among them
I wonder what the Free Software Foundation will think of this.
On the one end they’re all about sharing. On the other end Red Hat is enjoying some very… intimate… privileges with the FSF.
I wouldn’t be amazed if the FSF and Red Hat were “aligning” (translation: Red Hat putting pressure on the FSF to not complain about it) their views on this before the announcement was made.
Redhat no longer contribute funds to fsf, so they have no leverage
I’m curious…
Apparently - some decade+ ago, or so, IBM were channeling IP and re-engineering into the Linux kernel - they contributed enough, that the remnants of SCO tried to sue them for patent infringement…
BTW - even back then, IBM did a lot, shitload of stuff, for, and with, Red Hat…
the take-over by IBM was nothing new…
I’m surprised actually at current developments… Because IBM used to “embrace” OSS, even if they never OpenSourced AIX (wasn’t a great UNIX, but it wasn’t shit like SCO OpenServer - and it had a shitload of the goodies that Sun DID opensource, like NFS and NIS, and more)…
What is this? Do ibm own redhat?
OK, I looked it up. Not sure if I like it or not.
In general coorporate affairs are not kind to free software.
Just got this in my email. I’ve been waiting for them to release a statement :
Dear Customer,
We are writing to address the recent announcement made by Red Hat regarding significant changes to its source code policies. This news was unexpected in the open-source and web hosting worlds and has raised concerns regarding the feasibility of rebuilds and forks of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
At cPanel, we understand the importance of this news and want to assure you that we are closely monitoring the key organizations involved to provide you with the most up-to-date solutions as we navigate through these changes together.
Continued OS Support.
We aim to provide greater operating system (OS) stability and increased safety for all our customers. With this in mind, we will continue to support RockyLinux, AlmaLinux and CloudLinux, as they promise continued service. For full details, please read their official announcements: CloudLinux, AlmaLinux, RockyLinux.
However, if you wish to move to a different Linux-based distribution, we currently support Ubuntu 20.04 LTS on cPanel v102 and higher, and Ubuntu 22.04 LTS is on our roadmap for this year. Ubuntu continues to grow in popularity as one of the leading distros, and we’re open to hearing your feedback to help with this transition. You can view all supported OS here.
We remain committed to finding solutions that address any concerns associated with these changes. By supporting different OS vendors, we aim to support a wide variety of avenues for your business to overcome any potential challenges from third-party vendors.
For more information, please read this article. You can also visit our support portal to help you with any further queries.
Thank you for your trust,
The cPanel Team
Cpanel are about managing servers.
All the server OS’s they support are rhel based, except Ubuntu
I can understand their concern, but what they say is marketing gobbledegook
Behind it there is a fear that server maintainers are going to look beyond rhel and derivatives for server OS’s… there are plenty of viable FOSS alternatives, including BSD and the Debian family.