Re: [PLUG] Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

[Rich Freeman via plug <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:16 PM Steve Litt via plug
<plug@lists.phillylinux.org> wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman via plug said on Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:02:36 -0400
>
> >You want the companies
> >that are investing in FOSS to have an advantage over the ones that
> >just take without giving as much back.  RHEL isn't really my thing,
> >but we all benefit from it (IMO).
>
> I'm assuming the "you" in the preceding paragraph means "almost
> everyone", because personally, I wish companies had never invested in
> Linux.

Fair enough that I was being presumptuous.

I will say though that I don't agree with the whole idea that anybody
can control FOSS.  It is just code.  It only grows.  When you add 1000
lines of code you have 1000 lines more of it.  When you delete 2000
lines of code you lose none of them, and you gain the knowledge that
it might or might not be better to not have them.  The code never goes
away.

Now, those commercially-backed developers might not work on the
features I want them to work on, but it isn't like they're obligated
to work on them for me anyway.  It would be pretty selfish of me to
wish that they didn't have the opportunity to get paid so that maybe
some of them might just happen to work on things I want them to work
on, despite my not being willing to pay for it at the same rate.

> I'd rather jump through the hoops of mknod instead of udev.

I imagine that is pretty easy to do today (well, for what it entails
at least).  Just get rid of udev and use mknod.  Most applications
just expect the device files to be there - they don't care where they
come from.

Really though some of my main linux frustrations are with things that
DON'T use udev, like ALSA devices.  I can't ensure they have
consistent numbers/etc as all the flexibility of udev rules doesn't
apply to them.

> I'd
> rather be stuck with OSS than have corporate money determining the
> direction of Linux.

The direction of Linux is whatever you want it to be.  Just grab the
source and do whatever you want with it.  There is nothing stopping
you from maintaining your own fork, and receiving direct
contributions.

Of course, 99% of contributors are going to prefer just working with
the Linux Foundation stuff, since it has way more backing.  That's
their choice to make.  Getting rid of commercial development is
basically taking away THEIR choice so that they might be forced to
choose in the way you'd prefer they choose.  I think the reality is
that 95+% of them will just choose to use some other OS, but sure a
small portion of it might enter more community-driven projects.

>
> An analogy: In 2010 the Supreme Court overturned the McCain-Feingold
> campaign finance law, so with a few minor exceptions, corporations and
> super-pacs could spend unlimited funds on elections.

So, I don't want to get into politics here, but I think there is a BIG
difference.

Nobody gets a choice in their government, beyond their vote in an
election (many don't even get that).  The government also has, in
practice, the ability to potentially wield almost unlimited power over
your life, and again some do exercise that.

None of that is true with FOSS.  You can mix and match it however you
want, and the only cost is labor.

You can run a distro from 1995 if you want to.  If you get arrested
for breaking a law that was passed in 2003, you can't go into court
and argue that you prefer the laws as they existed in 1995 and want
those laws applied to you.  If you go into court the court will follow
whatever its procedures are in the place where you live and impose
whatever decisions it makes upon you.  You may or may not be allowed
to plead your case, but there is not a single place where you will
unilaterally have the final decision as to how it turns out.  When it
comes to what software runs on a computer you own, you really are in
control.

Now, running a distro from 1995 would certainly be inconvenient in
some ways, but that is still a freedom you have.  You're also free to
organize a community of like-minded people to develop something from
that base, or which works along the lines of what you prefer by
curating more modern stuff.  You can't form a community and declare
that within your parcel of land only laws passed before 1995 apply,
even if everybody in your community agrees with you.

I say all of this as somebody who tends to prefer the community-driven
approach.  Gentoo tends to be my distro of choice, though with more of
my stuff running in containers I tend to use distros-of-convenience
for running things.  Typically it comes down to how much I'm actually
interacting with the OS itself.

I used to see corporate contributions as more of a threat.  These
days, I tend to take more of a daoist perspective I think.  I take
what works and avoid what doesn't work for me.  I recognize that I
have a lot of control over the decisions I make, but those decisions
have costs and consequences, and so I also appreciate the value in
flowing with the stream.

(Keith - did I earn my sponsorship?)  :)

-- 
Rich
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug