[zapita]

Meh. Linux itself doesn’t need Red Hat anymore. Upstream got good enough that you just don’t need to stay on proprietary backports for years and years just to keep your service reliable and secure. These days most of Red Hat’s value add on Linux is to keep deprecated features alive for their large slow-moving customers. Sure they also contribute cool bleeding edge work, but nothing that couldn’t be picked up in a heartbeat by a team at Oracle, Google, Alibaba, or a hundred other systems companies.

As for those satellite projects you mention, in my experience the dependency on Red Hat is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their employees tend to close ranks and crowd out other contributors in the projects they sponsor. If RH disappeared tomorrow, for many of those projects the result would be more diverse contributors, with a healthier mix of ideas and priorities. It might help shock the Linux community out of the cultural rut it’s been stuck in.

[bkor]

> Meh. Linux itself doesn’t need Red Hat anymore.

It seems you're ignoring the vast amount of work Red Hat contributes as free software. See e.g. the amount of work put into the kernel: https://lwn.net/Articles/742672/. They've been increasing the amount of contributors while they've been expanding. Currently it's a pretty big company, so quite a huge amount of contributions. Further, any company they buy they tend to make the software free software.

You're being dismissive without any substance IMO.

[zapita]

I’m not dismissing the volume of quality of their contributions. I just don’t think they are so critically needed that Linux and its satellite projects couldn’t quickly recover if they stopped contributing (which was the GP’s question).

[amorousf00p]

I'd agree with you that RH is creating a closed ecosystem and many of the ideas in RH land are not in the best tradition of open source software and not good for a healthy community.

But... Slow moving can be another way to say 'proven' and who is out there deciding what should be deprecated if it isn't the big companies like RH? Is that the cultural 'rut' you refer to? That things don't move fast enough? If that is it I disagree. Most of the 'innovation' I've seen in software is wrapping old ideas for a new generation.

[zapita]

I completely agree that sometimes slowing down the pace of upgrades is the responsible thing to do, especially on mission-critical systems. But Red Hat is not the most authoritative or trustworthy source of information on that topic, because 1) they don’t actually build and operate enterprise systems themselves, their customers do; 2) they have an incentive to make their slow-moving proprietary forks look more useful than they actually are, 3) they have a track record of trying to make upstream less reliable and secure than it actually is, again with the goal of making their offering seem more needed.

My comment on “cultural rut” was unrelated. I was referring to the lack of diversity in the open-source community, and the difficulty in moving past the myths and closed-club mentality of 1960s US academia. Open-source is still primarily the playground of privileged, insecure, passive-agressive white males cargo-culting the behavior of their predecessors, but it could be so much more.

[magduf]

Sounds good to me. I've love to see Gnome and Gtk die off or at least become much less popular. There's much better technologies out there which are getting passed over because of RH's dominance here.

[yuhong]

Systemd is probably worth mentioning here.

[yellowapple]

I won't be missing it much.