Why Corporate Owned Linux Distributions like Red Hat are a Bad Idea

20 thoughts on “Why Corporate Owned Linux Distributions like Red Hat are a Bad Idea”

• Boohoo waah.

• what about ubuntu then? i mean its a corporate owned/company owned

• I have Ubuntu Linux,

• I would go back to Ubuntu if they would just get rid of snaps.. or if someone would come out with a debian base distro that keeps up with Ubuntu .. I would use Sid but even sid is a bit behind for my tastes

• I been enjoying F-39 Beta on Fusion, what are everyone's thoughts on that community OS?

• I still use ubuntu linux and I don't have a problem with snap packages only 😀

• After 20+ minutes explaining why corp distros are unreliable vs independent community projects, you don't do your argument much favour by announcing that you won't be releasing updates for your remix. Your corp criticism seems to be equally applicable, if not more so, to any individual or community, with whom "at any time you might have to change something because of an impulsive decision", to use your words. Perhaps by being a business you don't fall into the community or individual bucket, but probably more so that than a corporation. And perhaps a lack specific broken promise makes a difference, but the premise carries through.

  And that's not even considering the time and funding pressures of some non corp projects, which arguably make them even more flaky, with uncertainty about how long they can be sustained, particularly if the individuals or communities are self supporting a project in their spare time. Then again, there's no guarantees with corporations either.

  Both have their pros and cons, risks and benefits, and both are susceptible to delighting and disappointing 🙂 Because behind both there are always people with their unique sets of challenges and motivations.

• This is why I dual boot Arch and Debian. Bleeding edge software paired with the most rock solid stability.

• Nah they got alot of legal problems incoming, taking open source software then writing ontop of it and disregarding the licenses below you is BS. They've lost a few large contracts over this, sad for them lol.

• how can one buy something that is open source? 4:58

• Hi Jay, have you ever considered starting a discord server where people can ask questions outside of Youtube?

• Linux is trusted BECAUSE it is open source. Every other closed source big tech company has totally screwed its users. Big tech can't be trusted.

• reminds me of a parent trying to get their child to not something they don't agree with, but the harder they try, the harder the child will push back and rebel.

• Well said. Red Hat and Canonical just put drama where there is no need for it, thanks for pointing that out. Cut the drama, use non-Corporate Linux.

• Doesn’t NOT releasing the source code violate the GPL, which is the license the Linux kernel is under? Isn’t that like illegal?

• Well at least I don’t have to use a certain distribution… for now 😮

• People complain about company led open source solutions but there would be far less development without them too. Red hat has Fedora and CentOS streams upstream for the code. RHEL is more about the QA process around the code already available in the upstream projects and the final code is still available.

• There is so much wrong with this video… Where would Enterprise use of Linux be without Red Hat? CentOS is still free. Why do you and others feel that you are entitled to the RHEL source?

• Now that you have moved away from Ubuntu to Debian does that mean you will be bringing out a Mastering Debian Server book?

• In recent talk I heard Fedora Leads say that Fedora is a whitespace for RHEL/ Redhat. That means we the user are "filling the gaps" literally for the company.

Comments are closed.