I'm glad you do. I want to start contributing and donating too. But I do think the definition of freeloader is a bit adjusted for FOSS software.
Adonnen
joined 2 years ago
I get your point, but this definition applies to all users of FOSS software who do not actively contribute to its development. Purpose is a consideration here; I am freeloading if I use netflix's service through loopholes or piracy when it is intended for paid customers, but am I freeloading if I, a non developer and a student not in a position to donate, use libreoffice? By this definition, I clearly am a freeloader. But it is clearly intended for use by the general public.
For RHEL, there is more ambiguity, because although they sell it at cost, it is still based in an open source ecosystem. I understand how using rhel binaries without becoming a paying customer could be seen as freeloading, but the crucial difference is the intent of an open ecosystem and standard. RHEL establishes itself as a standard, and that means it's work will be used, not just contributed to. By closing it off, they are cutting off that standard.
Compare this to standards like USB or audio codecs. A powerful company or consortium may create an open standard and use it in their paid offerings, but others using it aren't freeloaders, even if they compete with said offerings. They're intended (or expected) users.
Sorry if I'm not making much sense. I'm only commenting because I find this interesting, not angry keyboard warring.
So basically all those who used CentOS and did not contribute anything even though CentOS cried for contributions for years until Red Hat eventually bought them? (=Most notably Oracle.)
Not contributing is not necessarily freeloaders. Users have no obligation. That's the point of open source. Only building off of open code and the closing yours off is freeloading.
Oracle and others used the source code and publish their distro's source. Oracle not contributing is jerky, sure, but for them to be freeloaders they would have to use enterprise linux as a basis for a pay walled proprietary or restricted source OS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their business model is using Oracle Linux in their cloud offerings.
Red Hat is still the biggest FOSS contributor. (I use openSUSE and SteamOS, btw, so I'm not even a RH product user.)
Hell, I use Fedora, so anything I contribute to is upstream of RHEL. I'm not saying RH socks. There are a lot of great people they employ and their business has been a huge positive for FOSS. But those (great) achievements were and are premised on community collaboration, and it's more than fair to raise a stink about it.
It's really not a loophole.
You're right about GPL. I have nothing against paid software. I was more describing the broader enterprise linux ecosystem. That is to say, RHEL's success is based on making it an open standard. The greater community can contribute either directly to the upstream or to the application ecosystem, with the understanding their work is applicable to the FOSS community. Closing the downstream is a loophole out of this system where they get to profit. It's a bait and switch.
Simply reusing Red Hat's source RPMs isn't an open ecosystem. All the EL downstreams finally collaborating is.
"Ecosystem" wasn't referring to the existence of clone distros but the development and adoption of enterprise linux they enable(d). The ecosystem is not only those directly contributing to enterprise linux but the developers targeting enterprise linux and the (IT/CS) user base familiarizing itself with enterprise linux. The market for a RHEL clone is not the market for RHEL enterprise solutions. As I said above, free availability of clones gets people into the ecosystem, and on the corporate end, as long as RH's offerings aren't enshittified, Red Hat converts these people into customers. It should be a win-win, but short-term profit maximization will hurt its trust and future growth.
I have no love for oracle, but in general the only freeloaders in FOSS development are companies that use the work of a whole ecosystem of unpaid developers and then use loopholes to restrict access.
"Lazy clones" are vital to maintaining the interoperability and openness that make RHEL (or any other corporate distro) attractive and keep them accountable for anticonsumer practices, preventing enshittification. Only when the company starts actively harming their product, or trust is lost, will clones hurt sales.
If they want a proprietary OS, they can build it themselves. The value proposition has always been in the support and service ecosystem and infrastructure provided by the corporation. Only when the company starts actively harming their product, or trust is lost, will clones hurt Red Hat's business.
My university uses Rocky. If it didn't exist, they would probably just use debian. Because it does exist, hundreds of students will be exposed to and learn to use enterprise linux, and will likely contribute to its corporate user base at companies that require RHEL.
If they kill clones, they are killing the on-ramp and ecosystem that makes their paid offerings so dominant. Students will learn something else, developers would deprioritize rpm, making their paid products less attractive.
No it's actually a 3 month overdue meme about them restricting the source code behind user agreements
Will I need a usb-c to rj45 adapter (or realistically, 2 since my laptop does not have an ethernet port)? I was planning to use my TB4 type c - type c cable and use an ethernet connection over usb.
I think the app shouldn't be an issue. Plenty of clients, either on web or for rdp or vnc. My main struggle is the connection.
Does your iPad support usb 2 (lightning), usb 3 or thunderbolt?
Will try soon, thank you!
Never omit the space
Quite frankly, the ADL commemorating him makes my blood boil. To be clear, they do some absolutely vital work combatting and monitoring hatred in the US, and I have been angered by the straight-up conspiracy theories about them. They are undoubtedly a scapegoat of a diverse swath of political movements. But between this (and Greenblatt’s recent defense of Musk), I cannot endorse them.
It seems like it’s easier to pick some prominent (often Jewish) person or organization to scapegoat than to actually confront the depths of American foreign policy, police brutality, etc. There’s no point to policing people’s anger towards Kissinger. He deserves much worse. But I cannot be fully comfortable with where it leads.