Why RedHat is BAD

20 thoughts on “Why RedHat is BAD”

• So…. Chris you realize your the reason Redhat killed off CentOS since you were not only deploying it, but also not deploying it into companies that would contribute back to CentOS. So you were freeloading.
  We knew Redhat was gonna do something like that again why are we all suprised redhat went and did something about Alma, Rocky, and Oracle Linux?

  Shoot, you can look at Git logs, there are ZERO commits froma rocky and ciq contributor in the CentOS Stream git repo nor upstream. Ive been looking since the annoucement, and their as toxic as toxic can be.

• Before I comment I would like to state I too have used mostly CentOS, RHEL in my career also. As you have pointed out the vocal desktop community doesn't really interest me as their complaints don't directly impact what I do.
  I do think all this anti-Red Hat stuff is very short sighted. Red Hat put a lot of money via developers into patching, kernel upstream, GNOME (this may be a positive or negative depending on what you use) etc. I agree they, as a business, are trying to make money but they have never hidden that fact. Much as I don't like the subscription for updates/patches model, Red Hat provided all the source with its branding removed onto its infrastructure for others to use. At that point is it not slightly unfair that Rocky Linux for example strike up a deal with NASA, I think, to provide support on their OS when essentially 80-90% of the work is being done by Red Hat?

  I don't agree with paywalling things but on the other hand be realistic, all businesses are struggling to make Opensource work financially and if it gets to a stage where that stops totally all that will be left is propriatory systems and a few people running Linux, BSD arguing amongst themselves on ethics etc. Nobody starts a company to not make money either to be profitable or at the very least sustainable.

  I suppose the positive here is that people are looking to other vendors in the IT Enterprise world. Currently I feel it is RHEL or nothing for most large companies. Giving Canonical or SuSe a chance would greatly help push Linux forward. I for one really like Ubuntu Server in terms of ease of deployment, setup etc but currently when you say enterprise Linux people in control mean Red Hat. That changing is a positive even if that is to Red Hat's detriment.

• let's go temple os, the only solution

• Fedora is not RHEL based, RHEL is Fedora based, please do not mixup upstream and downstream. otherwise i agree

• I'm glad RedHat did what they did. The 'enterprise' Linux mind space was hurting Linux. The reliance on a couple companies has undermined the community Linux movement. Dump RedHat. Dump Canonical. Dump Suse. Move to community distros like Debian.

• What recommendations can you give going forward for wannabe system admins?

• Good video.

• Debian and Arch… thanks for existing.

  I personally wouldn't want to use a distro where a company such as Red Had or Canonical with their dumb decisions is behind it.

• What did the company behind OpenSUSE do wrong?

• To be honest, this may be a blessing in disguise. All the RHEL out there and all the RHEL derivatives, etc., did actually create one potential problem in the IT space that nobody is really talking about. That is the problem of homogeneity. Think about it, one of the major reasons why Windows is such a security nightmare is because it's one code base from which all new versions are made and a new security bug found in the latest Windows often affect many previous versions.

  Such is the problem with RHEL and all the "RHEL compatible" distros out there. That one code base that they all share for the same patches and such create a lot of homogeneity in the Linux enterprise space. Sure it makes it easier to learn, you get certified and you're skills are applicable to all these "same systems" etc. However, you don't have as much diversity in tools, software versions, compile options, etc. It's not nearly as bad as the mess that is on the Windows side as you do have the ability to modify the system a lot more and set things a certain way to lock it down more, etc., but it does still create a kind of "lock-in" to a "typical way" of doing things.

  It is a trade off, but I think this will force more companies out of the RHEL camp and onto the competitors and non-RHEL compatible distros for the enterprise and that diversity can be a good thing long term IMO.

• Bruh this guy would take any opportunity to shit on red hat.

• Shocker

• Very impassioned. Bravo!

• So, asking money for providing services is bad ?… 🤔😏

• Do you have a onlyfans account for your soapbox? No homo.

• I recently installed Garuda Linux and it seems to be the most feature complete version I have tried, it came with everything I needed for the most part, like OBS, Mangohud, Blender, cad software, image editors like gimp and Krita, custom firefox browser with searxng, multiple custom and downloadable themes, Lutris and Heroic Launcher and Steam and discord, you name it it was all there, I stuck with the default windows like UI and everything seems to just work for the most part 90%, literally the closest to windows like environment as I could get, I have a few gripes, but the major one is no AMD control panel to use things like anti-lag and boost and all those features, if you know of one that would be great, other minor issues are some apps fail to launch correctly(mainly certain games). I tried Red Hat a while ago and it was good, frustrating they messed it up.

• I'm an IT professional, having worked with IT for 25 odd years now, mostly with Linux, and yes, I work with RHEL, but mostly at gunpoint. If I can choose, I choose Debian. It just works, no need for third party repositories to get your software and no fees. RHEL costs a lot, really a lot, and what you get out of the "box" is just a basic operating system with mostly outdated software that in some cases work well, but in a lot of other cases, especially with webservers, won't do it. Also, the number of times I've had to resort to using redhat support is low, perhaps one or two during those years and we ended up fixing those problems locally anyway. So that "support" is only something that upper management chooses to get an insurance certificate saying "if you only do as we say, using only the very limited amount of software available in this package, we may help you or just tell you that's not a bug, it's a feature or it'll be fixed in the next release" and at the time the new release gets out, it's already outdated.

  Just my 2c.

  roy

• There is no Red Hat anymore. Its IBM Hat.

• With Debian and arch and any community driven distro it’s still a big problem of the open source world that so many things are run by red hat.
  They can pull out their support from one day to another and make projects implode.

• As a home user Fedora is fine. As a business most businesses are fine with a red hat service agreement. its just another cost of business. The ones that aren't have the it department big enough to handle another distro and the requirements to keep updated.

Comments are closed.