Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gh-throw 1896 days ago
Red Hat would never participate. Their current (and for like the last decade or more) strategy seems to be to run toward various goals in convoluted and incompatible ways such that they're always "ahead" of everyone else, using their weight and the combined power of several projects they head to force the rest to burn resources playing catch-up with their meandering path to sub-optimal-but-sufficient solutions.
2 comments

Never heard that

Do you have any source? (Even if those are opinion based)

Gnome, systemd and its increasingly-tight integration with same, plus its eating everything in sight, wayland conveniently leaving everything up to the DE/WM (but gnome works, so why don’t you just use gnome?).

Ubuntu also tried to do a bunch of their own stuff, but not very well and without this apparent overall strategy that Red Hat has. They seemed to just be trying to differentiate themselves, not to also drive everyone else nuts as they’re forced to try to keep up.

Is Gnome driven by Red Hat? According to the project site the board and the advisory boards are not controlled by Red Hat employees, the Gnome foundation president isn't from Red Hat either, and the project is a GNU project.

Same question regarding to Wayland, from a shorter check I see that it is developed by the freedesktop.org which was founded by Havoc Pennington from Red Hat 21 years ago but it is seems that it isn't really under Red Hat control nowadays.

It's hard to escape being de facto controlled by the entity that's providing the overwhelming majority of your development resources. The board doesn't have the time or expertise to take a position on deep technical questions, and the main contributors are Red Hat employees with a Red Hat worldview.
Red Hat is also the main contributor to the linux kernel, almost every year. Red Hat is probably the company with the largest contribution to the open source world at large, and it's been that way before most of the other big players of today were born.
You're bringing logic into this, please stop. The propaganda narrative is to just bash Red Hat for any work done. Of course the company that employs many opensource people across the world is going to have some effect on the ecosystem.

The really funny part is that people think there is some metaphorical gun to developers heads to use this technology. There is a choice, there always has been.

> The really funny part is that people think there is some metaphorical gun to developers heads to use this technology. There is a choice, there always has been.

Of course, but when the choices are "support A and B for C" or "support A and B for C but now it'll be a ton of extra work to package and maintain because C deliberately cut out A (and every other alternative that's not B)... or drop A and only support B for C, which is becoming popular fast anyway because it has lots of money behind it" then those two sets of choices aren't exactly the same.

"There's a choice" doesn't mean the choices & options aren't being nudged pretty hard.

> You're bringing logic into this, please stop. The propaganda narrative is to just bash Red Hat for any work done. Of course the company that employs many opensource people across the world is going to have some effect on the ecosystem.

I used to like them a lot, but at some point noticed I dislike an awful lot of the ways they influence the Linux desktop, and the tech they push, often by intertwining the projects they have influence over and driving them in ways that practically exclude and marginalize alternatives. If they changed I'd change my opinion. But yeah, I'm probably just some sort of simpleton.

These kind of comments are really baffling to me. If they have no interest or investment whatsoever in A, then what are they supposed to do? Can you blame any distribution for not wanting to put in all that extra work to package and maintain it themselves, for every single other piece of open source out there that someone might have a passing interest in? It's a business, they don't have infinite money to spend towards everyone's side project on Github. I wish they did but sadly, they don't.

I get that you feel excluded and marginalized but those may be misplaced emotions, if you were never a paying customer or a developer then you were probably never part of the club. It's just some company posting free stuff online, and you're welcome to take it or leave it.

Systemd is winning because it’s clearly a lot better than the alternatives.

Red Hat didn’t force it on any other distro. A majority of major distro makers chose it because it works really well for their purposes.

I assumed the majority of distro makers chose it because of red hat and canonical choosing it, making it a defacto standard.

Kinda like gnome, even though kde is more customizable and has more features.

This seems like it could just be a case of Hanlon's razor. Software projects are quite capable of being convoluted and incompatible without any agenda having caused it.
Yes, but there would be a sufficiently-well-resourced agenda to mostly avoid convolution....except the incentive is misaligned.
With the death of CentOS, is Red Hat really relevant anymore in the consumer space anyway? My gut instinct would be no but happy to be corrected if this is false.
CentOS isn't dead.
So CentOS is actually getting better with a more open development model. Awesome.
Fedora?