82
Preparing to move from Ubuntu to Fedora
(lemm.ee)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
82 points (94.6% liked)
Linux
48143 readers
757 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't move to Fedora. They are Red Hat and recently shat all over Free Software principles and broke the GPL by making Red Hat Enterprise CLOSED SOURCE.
They are dead to the Linux and Free Software world. You'll be going from bad to worse.
I HIGHLY recommend Linux Mint Debian Edition 6. It's based directly on Debian (one of the oldest distros ever and the best), is Free Software loving and 100% Community. No Greedy Corp Inc in sight.
It runs the excellent Cinnamon desktop and the Mint team have set up all the apps etc perfectly. And because it's Debian it's super reliable and has massive amounts of apps etc .
They are _ sponsored_ by Red Hat. That isn't an equivalent to being Red Hat.
Literally the majority of the developers working there are full time Red Hat employees. It's Red Hat disguised as community.
The last time the project leader measured it, only about 40% of Fedora contributors were known to be Red Hat employees. So while it's a big chunk, it's not a majority.
Ok, thanks, good to know. So perhaps for now we can give Fedora a free pass.
You better hope that Cinnamon migrates to Wayland before Red Hat stops supporting Xorg. Despite the deeply researched and evidence based opinion above, Red Hat is the the primary contributor to many of the technologies propping up Mint. Xorg is MIT licensed of course and Red Hat has no obligation to share their changes for Xorg with Mint but they do. Most of the original software Red Hat writes is released under the GPL and used by every other distro. The very first program that Debian runs when it boots was written and is maintained by Red Hat. Fedora was founded by Red Hat to explicitly be community based and they pay the salaries of many of the prominent contributors. Regardless of what you think of Red Hat’s behaviour, I am embarrassed for anybody that honestly believes Red Hat is closed source, even without the all caps.
Can you read? Have a read of what Richard Stallman says Free Software is:
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Read carefully. Several times if you don't get it at first. Then go cry in a corner for being a jackass
It's basically the opposite. Fedora is the community based upstream, and some of it reaches RHEL, but Fedora isn't Red Hat.
What Red Hat did was limit who they distribute the source code to to paid customers, and add provisions to their TOS to give them the right to end their paid contract with you if you redistribute it. You aren't prevented from doing so, but choosing to do so prevents you from getting future versions, which you were only entitled to through said contract. They also still open-source to CentOS Stream, just upstream of RHEL.
Now, do I think it was a good move by RH, no. Was it legal, probably, yes, but IANAL, eventual courts will tell. Did it go against the "spirit" of the GPL, maybe, yes. But is RHEL closed-source? No, it's objectively not. Please, don't spread misinformation.
Misinformation my ass
Read. Then read again. Then read again until you get it.
From gnu.org "What is free software?"
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
As you can see Free Software (and the GPL) says that the end user has the right to FREELY USE AND REDISTRIBUTE the software, AS IS.
In other words, I could get a copy of RHEL and without making a single change, could redistribute it or even sell it.
Yet Red Hat calls this "freeloading". Yet that is PRECISELY what Free Software is about!
Rocky Linux, Alma Linux etc were well within their rights to rebrand and redistribute RHEL bug for bug to others. Red Hat had no right to shut them out. Yes they could have made them a customer and charged them for it, but they didn't do that. And if I'm not mistaken they made the binaries available, not the source code. Meaning that Rocky and Alma would need to spend weeks compiling the code before they could even make it ready for distribution.
Now, someone could become a client of Red Hat, get the code and then host it on a server for anyone to download. But I have a feeling Red Hat would drop them as soon as they found out.
Basically RH now have a closed source mentality.
As for Fedora, stop being so naive. Were you born yesterday? I'm an IT Pro and I can tell your if my company set up a working group full of full time employees to work on a "community" distro which then gets directly absorbed into it company and used in our enterprise products, that working group is to all intents and purposes a part of my company since I'm freaking paying their salaries, and they are working on my freaking product!
Imagine working on big parts of the Linux desktop and projects just use your source code and build exact clones off your Distro, while all the developers you pay need the income to keep contributing to awesome modern software.
It is difficult but businesses are asked if Linux Desktop needs money, not hobby users.
They shouldn't have used Linux in that case because according to GNU, the FSF and Richard Stallman, if you use Free Software under the GPL you are agreeing to the following:
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
As you can see, they are required by the principles of free software to let others distribute it, when without changing a single line of code..... Don't go calling us freeloaders when were practicing Free Software principles.