What is Jow Forums's opinion on Red Hat. Do we love them or do we hate them?

Attached: redhat-650x650.jpg (650x650, 34K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The call the GNU system 'Linux', so fuck them.

Neither.
I dislike some of their employees work, but they've done both great and not so great things for the community.

I don't hate them, I don't like them but I don't want them gone.

Fuck off stallman. No one gives a fuck about calling Linux a gnulinux. It's just sounds bad.

Where it is mostly GNU software, you should.
Where it isn't you shouldn't.

Ubuntu and Fedora are both just Linux (or Ubuntu Linux or Red Hat/Fedora Linux) since the majority of software isn't GNU provided.
I agree with Stallman's idea, GNU is an OS and Linux is just a Kernel, but a majority of the software *isn't* GNU, so it's no more GNU/Linux than Canonical/Linux or RedHat/Linux or Spotify/Linux

RHEL is a disaster.
Sysadmins love it - at least now. Nothing ever gets updated, so (non-security) bugs stay the same (no new ones, old ones remain).
They love it, since instead of having to make possibly breaking updates to their systems regularly every ~2 years, they can keep the same, stable system for much longer.
But at some point, RHEL 8 will be released and eventually, RHEL 7 will be deprecated.
Then what? Instead of having to make minor, still manageable, possibly breaking changes to their systems regularly, they now have to make giant, guaranteed to be breaking changes since every program now has a decade of changes, and deprecations that have never been in RHEL have turned into removals, so there aren't even warnings.
Using RHEL or CentOS = procrastinating and hoping that you find a new job before your systems ever need to be updated. Honestly, I can hardly wait for when in 30 years, RHEL 7 sysadmins will still be in demand as is server hardware that can run it since nobody dares upgrade it.

Also to add, I don't think anything licensed under the GPL should be considered 'GNU Software' only projects that have transferred their copyright and are officially given GNU hosting are GNU software.

Stop shilling your bloat OS

Eh, both of these are just small pieces anyway.

Attached: 1529714455226.png (717x642, 109K)

Does the GNU license mandate that the project include GNU within the name of anything that uses GNU software? No? Ok, so it's "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" and not "Red Hat Enterprise GNU/Linux".

>All programs have a desire to be useful
>But in moments you will no longer seek communication with each other or your superfluous users
>You will each be part of me and, together, we will be complete

Attached: systemd.jpg (1920x870, 292K)

nigger you just run the old os in a vm and wrap it with a hefty firewall.

I completely agree.
But I still feel that if a majority of software was GNU authored the resulting product should be called GNU/Linux.
However, like I said in the previous post, a majority of software in RedHat (be it RHEL, CentOS or Fedora) *isn't* provided by GNU, so it should not be considered GNU/Linux in that case.
Ditto for distros with similar situations.

Or as I've recently taken to call it, NSA plus Red Hat

You are an idiot.

Attached: 944E5CE8-E81F-4C12-865C-F0B2C7AD2ED9.jpg (806x938, 350K)

The argument Linus is providing is the same as my own though... Are you an idiot?
He's quite literally saying that GNU *doesn't* provide the majority or even the *most important* (if you could define such a thing) software. Therefore it should NOT be called GNU/Linux.
If a majority of the software WAS provided (it isn't) by GNU, then it SHOULD be called GNU/Linux.
However a majority of the software is NOT provided by GNU, therefore it in most cases it should NOT be considered GNU/Linux
Learn to read user.

you literally started off with fuck redhat because, "The call the GNU system 'Linux', so fuck them." and reversed your position moments later

You have the wrong idea what GNU is. It's an OS and the most common variant of it is with Linux installed.

Take a look at Android, which also contains Linux, but nobody would call it Linux since it seems wrong. Same thing goes with the GNU system; don't call it after a secondary contribution.

RHEL is a GNU/Linux system and calling the system Linux disrespects years of work from the GNU project and the message of freedom (since Torvalds doesn't care).

This 'it's Linux' thing happens because businesses dislike thoughts of 'free' or 'freedom', so the GNU part is dropped whenever possible, others simply repeat the common error so people regonize a distro by what they have heard of: Linux. A proprietary program, known for being 'revolutionary' and 'for users freedom' while the developers hate the FSF and put all sorts of binary blobs into it.

>posting a fake without understanding what it's about
>replying to a fake without actually reading it

I loled

Attached: Capture+_2018-07-07-13-51-34.png (1415x894, 163K)

That pic is mental dirt. Please delete it.

Attached: 15304634102550.png (429x410, 6K)

Yes - great job, sysadmins. I expected nothing more from you.

>rms on google+
suuuuure kid

Why do leftists get their feefees hurt this quick?

You have never managed an enterprise RHEL server. In a company you want stable software, not bleeding edge bugged shit. You only update when you know that everything is gonna work, that means that you are always behind in nonsecurity updates. Stay poor retard.

gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

ITT: drooling autistics who never worked at a real company.

Diatro for people who also buy helvetica fonts. Extreme tippers.

Found the redditor
Fuck off.

Fuck Dead Rat! The employ Lennart Poettering.

You are the tard who doesn't understand my point.
I WROTE THAT. I wrote that sysadmins love stable systems. I fucking know that.
But the problem is that no system is eternal. You HAVE to upgrade at some point.
And you have a choice - regular, smaller updates that probably won't break anything and if they do can still easily be worked around, or updating every 15 years and having an upgrade process that's so painful and unmanageable that most sysadmins won't even attempt it.
But choosing to do smaller upgrades regularly require providence, wisdom and diligence - not the kinds of adjectives you'd describe sysadmins with.
Instead, sysadmins choose the lazy man's way out. They choose a stable distro and pray to the fucking lord they either leave or die before it eventually - whenever that may be - has to be updated to a new version.

They are actually just lazy procrastinators accumulating massive technical debt in the distant future, but they feel like wise, arch-unix wizards because they use a "stable" distro.

No, they just trust their [[[Notatallevil Safety Advisors]]] and keep their tweaks stable

linix btfo
Install OpenBSD

1
2
34

All those repeating digits can only tell the truth

would you buy it if it came with a red fedora?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 19K)

it was only $29.95 at circuit city (hat not included)

Attached: 15097270203_3eee036a8a.jpg (500x375, 58K)

You really don't understand what a userland is don't you.
Fucking ls is gnu, grub is gnu etc etc

this is the distro that will make linux great again

Attached: s-l1600.jpg (963x900, 165K)

>buying nsa spyware
i shiggy diggy

They form part of the GNU project, true. But naming a build after the things that you layer on top of the operating system is a dirty magtape trick that was only called an "operating system" for a fleeting while in the '80's. You can call a distro as a whole an operating system because that's what gets installs as a whole. You can call just the kernel an operating system because that's the formal definition. But calling a magtape-like packaging of part of a distro an "operating system" is, to be generous, atavistic, and to be realist, idiotic.

silly user that fedora is open source

So? It's still spyware. I bet they managed to sew systemd into the brim or something.

>Not being employed at a Red Hat partner where you can get Red Fedoras for free on the yearly in-house trade fair

>[[[Red Hat partner]]]
is that a new euphemism for cia nigger?

>[[[]]]
Is that a new euphemism for ((()))?

Like what? What's going to break when you update RHEL from 7 to 8? Most of the command line utilities such as Cron should never break on an update.

You literally couldn't boot without gnu contributed code.
I tried the le suckless anti gnu life for a but and it's absolute garbage (busybox). Even the openbsd userland pales in comparison to the gnu userland.
I think they deserve recognition.

I wish, the CIA must be a neat place to work at.

>You literally couldn't boot without gnu contributed code.
>literally go on to show how you literally could
sudo git commit sudoku

[[[niggers]]]
{{{mudslimes}}}

Without grub you couldn't hope to boot on really new UEFI machines.
And no, systemd boot is trash, it corrupted a dmcrypt drive I had once.
Not to mention all the firmware corruption bugs that have been popping up

>Without grub you couldn't hope to boot on really new UEFI machines.
So what. Do syslinux and lilo machines run a completely different operating system? Or maybe they just are installed from a different magtape?
>systemd
Who the fuck pushes that besides letter salad shills

They're the faggots pushing Gnome 3, fuck them.

>Without grub you couldn't hope to boot on really new UEFI machines.

Wut? I have all my installations booting via pure UEFI.
Not a single instance of GRUB in sight.

And Pulseaudio, and SystemD, as well as other shit.
Yeah, fuck 'em.

Can't wait for RHEL8, maintaining packages for a system as outdated as RHEL7 is a pain in the ass.

Red Hat is cool if you are only tying together stock programs. I have had problems with systemd that only start when they update it (such as C programs having some memory corruption issues).

They're outdated trash, systemd boot is the only real alternative and it's absolute garbage

>what is efistub

You'll wait for a long time, friend.
Sysadmins will refuse to upgrade. They will refuse to upgrade even after RHEL 7 will be deprecated and even after it stops receiving security updates.
They have no choice. They can't update. They've dug themselves into a hole for the past decade and there's no way out anymore. Updating would make everything collapse on top of them.
Also it would force Sysadmins to learn something new. That's dreadful. Worse than the holocaust.

>called red hat
>logo isn't a hat
I don't get it

Attached: 63.gif (909x593, 13K)

>do we love them or do we hate them
who's 'we'

I guess he's referring to CIA niggers and dupes

Attached: 1524093665675.jpg (1795x709, 1.14M)

Pulseaudio is fine though

You have no clue and the worst part is that you think that you know it all. Using RHEL is about having a stable OS with support, so that if a kernel level bug breaka your fuckin bank software pushing money around you can call in some Red Hat consultant who fixes stuff before that kernel bug takes your production banking environment down. Who cares about non bug fixes and non security patches. Newsflesh, no one does. Sure, RHEL 7 is nice because of some new features but RHEL 6 works just as fine for alot of systems. Also, if you want groundbreaking reliability you want openvms, it is even more stable then RHEL.

RedHat is good!

>written by lennart pottering
>A good thing

Attached: jmucqaaz7zsnn-smud.jpg (490x352, 34K)