What? Please no. XFCE is its own thing. It is not old GNOME. They are both GTK based so a little collaboration on apps they both need would be interesting. Beyond that, they are different projects—like GNOME and KDE. BTW, there is also an “old” KDE called Trinity.
Great to see this perspective from a developer and it totally makes sense. I think the Firefox browser has encountered essentially the exact same thing. Linux support may be a strategic advantage for devs that embrace it.
That does not mean that every developer will find the same thing though. Proton and Unity have many, many Linux specific ( or at least non-Windows ) bugs I am sure. It would be easy to bemoan these. It takes a different kind of mind-set to see working around these kinds of issues as valuable. Even rarer are devs that take the opportunity to address bugs in the underlying tech ( outside the game - eg. in Proton ).
I suspect though that many non-Windows bugs are actually due to defects in the game. They are just not manifesting yet or in the same way. The fact that Linux exposes these is again an opportunity in the way the author of this post points out.
In other words, cross-platform deployment is an opportunity for a stronger product. Access to an engaged community with strong communication skills and technical chops is a bonus.
Hopefully more devs start to see the world this way. Great article.
I would echo that but suggest going to EndevourOS. EOS is a lot easier to install for normal people. What you get is insanely close to pure Arch.
I agree that running Arch is easier than people think. It is very stable. Also, because everything you could want is in the repositories ( and up-to-date ) it does not become a spaghetti like mess over time. No more third-party repos. No more PPAs.
Look, everybody is entitled to their opinion and I respect yours. I have posted enough that it is just going to look combative and so I think this will be the last one. That said, this feels like the kind of “then why don’t we just allow murder” straw man that gets used when we want to argue emotions instead of facts. Yes, breaking your arm sounds very unfair. Is that a good analogy?
I think a much better analogy would be me signing an employment agreement that places restrictions on my freedoms that I otherwise have as a citizen of my country. Who cares what restrictions. Maybe I cannot drink at work. Maybe I cannot travel to certain countries. Maybe I cannot play video games on the work computer ( even at home ). Maybe I am not allowed to express certain political or religious views with customers. Or maybe there is a public article showing that all our competitors are better than us and I am not allowed to tell customers about that article. Let’s take that last one and assume I am American ( I am not but we need a legal framework we may all know ).
Has my company taken away my 1st amendment right to free speech? If I say something they do not like, they will take away my job and all the income I wanted from it in the future. Is that fair and ethical? It certainly hurts me. How is that not massively illegal under the US constitution? Surely employment law is less important than the constitution. How is it morally ok and not totally against “the spirit” of a free society?
Well, I have not lost any rights. I remain free to say what I want. However, there can be consequences. In this case, they are consequences that I have contractually agreed to. The First Amendment and my Employment Contract are not the same thing and they grant me different rights and impose different obligations. I am free to share the damaging article but, if I do, my employer will stop paying me.
Free Speech Absolutionists may insist that I not be fired for acting against the interests of my employer. Most of the rest of us understand that this os ok as we have to balance the interests of all parties of we want a system that works well overall. We also understand that no rights have been lost.
I see this as very much like that. Red Hat is not adding any new restrictions to the copyright license and, as such, they are granting you full rights as per that license. Legally, Red Hat is granting you the right to redistribute their code when they give you code licensed under the GPL. Simultaneously, they ask me to agree to a subscription agreement ( like an employer asks me to agree to an Employment Agreement ). The subscription agreement outlines what Red Hat will do for me and what I must agree to do in return. I do not have to agree to the subscription agreement. I can CHOOSE to because it offers something I want. In doing so, I may have agreed to some constraints on my otherwise fundamental rights or more general legal agreements.
So, I do not think Red Hat is threatening to break your arm. They do not harm you in any way other than to stop doing nice things for you in the future.
What I see in the reaction to Red Hat is a bunch of people that think they should be able to break their employment contracts but still keep getting paycheques from their employer.
If we still disagree, that is fine. I think this post fairly explains my position.
Somebody thought the need for a new package manager was great enough to spend time creating one. That person at least must think it is justified.
We, the users, have not chosen just one of the options to be the standard. Does that “justify” that they all exist?
In the short term, the popularity of Linux is certainly hurt by the complexity of the ecosystem and the lack of standardization. As a product, it would see better adoption of it were more standardized. Without writing a book about why, there is no doubt about this. The short version is that, today, Linux is many products, none of which can compete as effectively as one would and all of them are impaired by the confusion this causes.
In the longer run though, it is almost certainly one of the great strengths of Linux. Linux is many products and as a result, it can target and effectively fill almost every niche. That is going to make it very hard for alternatives to compete at some point. Once Linux knowledge and Linux applications ( yes, I know ) become more mainstream, this compatibility between options becomes a strength. I can have my own operating system that is just the way I want it, but it still runs Docker and Stream ( as examples ).
Think of the cereal aisle at the grocery store. If I want to introduce a new cereal ( or pasta sauce or whatever ), coming up with one that has 10 flavours is not going to work ( without immense marketing muscle ). None of them will sell well enough and probably all of them will get pulled from store shelves. I would be better off launching one. However, once I have a mature market position, I can have not just the regular version but the whole wheat version, the honey nut version, the cinnamon version, the holiday version , etc. They will collectively make each other stronger and all potentially sell well ( again, think pasta sauce flavours if that makes more sense to you ).
This is why there was The Tesla Roadster at first and now there are the Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, and maybe the Cyber Truck.
Linux is not a “product” though. It is an Open Source program. While any given Linux distributor ( distribution ) may think like I outline above, collectively the Linux market is fragmented. Linux is a mix of commercial, community, and individual interests all scratching their own itch.
I am super interested in Chimera Linux right now and fairly negative towards Ubuntu. This makes me part of your problem though. Chimera Linux makes “Linux” less predictable, more confusing, and more frustrating for new and potential users. Pushing everybody to Ubuntu would be a better market strategy. That said, I personally want to use Chimera Linux and, while I say that I want Linux to succeed, I also secretly hope that Ubuntu will fail. Chimera Linux uses a package manager used by only one other Linux ( and in fact they use different, incompatible versions of it so really they are unique ). Clearly, my priorities are mid-aligned with the premise of your question.
So, what does “justified” mean in the Linux space.
Red Hat does “subscribe” to the software they ship and fully complies with the terms specified for them to do so. Again, rhetoric completely at odds with the facts.
Let’s be explicit about the “loophole” that keeps getting talked about. What is it?
The GPL outlines a bunch of freedoms that you get when somebody distributes software to you. It does not provide any rights to anybody that has not been given software. Is that the loophole?
Red Hat provides CentOS Stream to everybody and so it, along with all its source code and everything else is available to the public. Only RHEL subscribers have any rights to RHEL because they are they only ones that get it from Red Hat. The public has no inherent right to RHEL, code or otherwise. This is of course compatible with the GPL and not in some nuanced tortured way but of course with its core purpose—to grant freedoms for software that you use ( have been given ). Is that the loophole?
The GPL talks about the rights you have regarding software you have already received—that you use—not software you may or may not receive in the future. Is that the loophole?
Importantly though, we are not talking about an individual package covered by the GPL. We are talking about RHEL, which is a collection of software of which less than half is even GPL licensed. On that basis, I submit that the following text ( extracted from the GPL itself ) might be the “loophole” that you are referring to:
“Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.”
Again, that language is quoted directly from the license.
Is that a loophole? Because it seems like a very specific provision to me. Did the authors of the GPL say that the GPL does not extend to all of RHEL by accident?
I am not repeating anything Red Hat has said.( even if they said it ). I have not read any of their responses. I am reacting to what I have read and seen myself in the corners of tue Internet that I frequent ( where I have never seen Red Hat post — like here for example ). My thoughts and analysis are my own.
“Starting with the FSF definition” you say and then completely ignore what the GPL itself says about aggregates like RHEL. Again, less than half of RHEL is even software released under the GPL. Much of the software that is GPL was authored by Red Hat themselves. According to the text of the GPL itself, Red Hat is not required to distribute the code to the totality of the RHEL distribution or even to more than half the code. That is not a “loop hole”. The authors of the GPL went out of their way to spell this out. The word “aggregate” is introduced in the text of the GPL to specifically differentiate something like a full OS distribution from an individual work released under the GPL and included in that distribution. Beyond the hand-waving, I have never seen somebody explain to me how RHEL itself is governed by the GPL other than as an example of an “aggregate” that the GPL goes out of its way to point out would NOT be governed by the GPL. I have pointed this out many times and, disappointingly, the responses I get always completely ignore this. RHEL is not governed by the GPL other than as something that is specifically and explicitly excluded from the conditions of the GPL by the text of the GPL itself ( not as loop hole but by a section of the license that does not even need to be in the license other than to clarify this very thing ).
As for the “4 freedoms”, as stated above, you have all 4 of those freedoms for any GPL software from Red Hat. They even extend these freedoms to you for software that does not require it.
Let’s talk about “the spirit” off Free Software here.
The controversy is about Red Hat restricting the ability ( really just making it less convenient ) to piggy-back off them to make guaranteed “exact”, “identical”, “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL. Why does Rocky Linux want to make “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL? Why does Orace? Why does SUSE? Well that is simple. It is because they have built a business on providing guaranteed compatibility with RHEL.
What does “bug-for-bug” compatibility with RHEL mean? Well, it means that all that can be done is to rebuild and redistribute the packages created by Red Hat exactly as Red Hat created them. Does “the community” want to use this code as a base for incorporating their own changes and innovations? No. They cannot change it or it would no longer build into a bug-for-bug clone of RHEL. Can they even fix bugs? Again, no. “Bug-for-bug” means having the same bugs.
The people fighting hardest to take the exact packages output by Red Hat are explicitly fighting for the right to take RHEL without paying and with the express plan of giving absolutely nothing back.
And you know what, you can still do that with any code you get from Red Hat. If you are going to do that though, they want to stop sending you their future work. The horror.
The fury around these changes from Red Hat is that people ( most loudly companies that want to compete with Red Hat ) not only want to explicitly take without giving back but they also want to ensure that Red Hat is forced to provide all their future work for free as well. The demand is that Red Hat provide their labour and expense for free—forever.
And again, to be very clear, we are not even talking about source code. Because Red Hat does give away the code that they produce not just because they have to but because they want to ( they author stuff and make it GPL when they could choose other licenses ). They founded the Fedora project to create an aggressively free distribution and pay the salaries of many of its core contributors. This is very clearly something they volunteer willingly as they founded the project specifically to do that. Red Hat also pays to make CentOS Stream available which has all the same software and code in it as RHEL and can even be ABI compatible ( as Alma is now doing ). All the code, if that is what you want, is very available. Red Hat is not hoarding code. Red Hat is not taking anybody’s code and trying to close it off.
If this was about the code and the ability to preserve it for “the community” then then there would not be much problem. The problem is that people want specifically to make “bug-for-bug” RHEL clones now and in the future and they want Red Hat to do all the work to make that possible without any contribution from “the community” at all. Again, “the work” here is not authoring source code but all the other work that goes into making a full distribution.
What “community” is being damaged by telling people to use or fork CentOS Stream instead of trying to make “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL? How is this “extremely damaging to the community and FOSS principles”?
If the right to take without giving back is what people mean by “the spirit” of Free Software then this is the moment that I break with Free Software and go fully Open Source.
For anybody that thinks that Free Software and Open Source are the same thing, Open Source is a pragmatic philosophy about how developer collaboration leads to better software while Free Software ( as defined by the Free Software Foundation ) is a political movement focused on the rights of users ( just user freedoms - explicitly not software author or developer freedoms ). The GPL, specially, restricts the freedom of software developers which is why many other Open Source licenses are often called “permissive” licenses ( because they are MORE free). Not all Open Source software is Free Software by the definition of Open Source provided by the Open Source Institute.
Red Hat, I notice, voluntarily chooses the GPL for the code they author instead of choosing a more “permissive” license. Interesting choice for such a “greedy corporation”.
I am all over the idea of collaboration around software development. I do not see though how anybody can claim to credibly fighting for that in this Red Hat spat though. If this were about collaboration ( not just explicit duplication ), I imagine Red Hat would be on board. Based on “the community” reaction, It seems that “the spirit” of Free Software is more about entitlement and the right to demand continued servitude from the people that create software for you. Ask not what I can do for the software but rather what does my software provider HAVE to do for me. Those are not politics that I care to support. Count me out
In my view, the “community” reaction was terrible. Regardless of if you agree with them or not, the response should be honest and rational. I found the reaction, emotional, political, and frankly dishonest. The response was that Red Hat was suddenly going proprietary, that they were violating the GPL, and / or that they were “taking” the work of untold legions of free software volunteers without giving back. They were accused of naked corporate greed by companies whose whole business is based on using Red Hat’s work without paying ( peak hypocrisy ).
Let’s start with what they actually did. Red Hat builds RHEL first by contributing all their code and collecting all the Open Source packages they use into a distribution called CentOS Stream. Once in a while, they fork that and begin building a new release of RHEL. That requires lots of testing, packaging, configuration, documentation, and other work required to make RHEL above and beyond the source code. Previously, they made the output of all this work publicly available. What they did was stop that. So, what does it look like now?
Red Hat now only distributes the RHEL SRPM packages to their subscribers ( which may be paying customers or getting it free ). The support agreement with Red Hat says that, if you distribute those to others, they will cancel your subscription. That is the big controversy.
What you cannot do now is “easily” build a RHEL clone that is guaranteed “bug for bug” compatible with RHEL and use it to compete with Red Hat. You will notice that those making the most noise, like Rocky Linux, want to do that.
So, are Red Hat violating the GPL? No.
First, Red Hat distributes all the code to make RHEL to the actual people they “distribute to” ( to their subscribers ) including everything required to configure and build it. This is everything required by the GPL and more.
Second, less than half of the code in RHEL is even GPL licensed. The text of the GPL itself says that the requirements of the GPL do not extend to such an “aggregate” ( the term the GPL itself uses ). So, Red Hat is going quite above and beyond the licensing by providing their subscribers code to the entire distribution. Yes, beyond.
Third, CentOS Stream remains open to everybody. You can build a Linux distribution from that that is ABI compatible with RHEL. That is what Alma Linux is doing now. Red Hat contributes mountains of free software to the world, both original packages and contributions to some of the most important packages in the free software world. Red Hat is not required to license packages they author under the GPL but they do. They are not required to make all of CentOS Stream available to the public but they do. They are certainly not freeloaders.
But what about this business of cancelling subscriptions? Isn’t that a restriction in violation of the GPL? Not in my view.
The GPL says that you are free to distribute code you receive under the GPL without fear of being accused of copyright violation. It says you can modify the code and distribute your changes. It says you can start a business in top of that code and nobody can stop you. Do RHEL subscribers enjoy all these freedoms. Yes. Yes they do.
What happens ( after the change ) when a RHEL subscriber violates the terms of their subscriber agreement? Well, they cease to be a subscriber. Does this mean they lose access to the source they got from RHEL? No. Does it mean they can be sued for distributing the code? No. I mean, you could risk trademark violation if you sell it I guess.
So, what does it mean that RHEL cancels your subscription? Well, it means they will no longer support you. I hope people see that as fair. It also means as bs they will no longer distribute their software to you IN THE FUTURE.
That is it. That is the outrage.
If you give away the results of Red Hat’s hard work to productize CentOS Stream into RHEL, they stop sending you future releases.
Again, that is it.
You can do whatever you want with what they already sent you. You have all the rights the GPL provides, even for software licenses as MIT, BSD, Apache, or otherwise. Nothing has been taken from you except access to FUTURE Red Hat product ( other than totally for free via CentOS Stream of course ).
Anyway, as you can see, they are the devil and we should hope their business fails. Because, why would we want a commercial successful company to keep contributing as much to Free Software and Open Source as they do?
Which two terms? Everyone has an agenda but I am not sure what I am being accused of here. Do you mean Free Software vs Open Source? The FSF goes to great lengths to distinguish between those two terms:
If we are marking the birth of Linux and trying to call it GNU / Linux, we should remember our history.
Linux was not created with the intention of being part of the GNU project. In this very announcement, it says “not big and professional like GNU”. Taking away the adjectives, the important bit is “not GNU”. Parts of GNU turned out to be “big and professional”. Look at who contributes to GCC and Glibc for example. I would argue that the GNU kernel ( HURD ) is essentially a hobby project though ( not very “professional” ). The rest of GNU never really not that “big” either. My Linux distro offers me something like 80,000 packages and only a few hundred of them are associated with the GNU project.
What I wanted to point out here though is the license. Today, the Linux kernel is distributed via the GPL. This is the Free Software Foundation’s ( FSF ) General Public License—arguably the most important copyleft software license. Linux did not start out GPL though.
In fact, the early goals of the FSF and Linus were not totally aligned.
The FSF started the GNU project to create a POSIX system that provides Richard Stallman’s four freedoms and the GPL was conceived to enforce this. The “free” in FSF stands for freedom. In the early days, GNU was not free as in money as Richard Stallman did not care about that. Richard Stallman made money for the FSF by charging for distribution of GNU on tapes.
While Linus Torvalds as always been a proponent of Open Source, he has not always been a great advocate of “free software” in the FSF sense. The reason that Linus wrote Linux is because MINIX ( and UNIX of course ) cost money. When he says “free” in this announcement, he means money. When he started shipping Linux, he did not use the GPL. Perhaps the most important provision of the original Linux license was that you could NOT charge money for it. So we can see that Linus and RMS ( Richard Stallman ) had different goals.
In the early days, a “working” Linux system was certainly Linux + GNU ( see my reply elsewhere ). As there was no other “free” ( legally unencumbered ) UNIX-a-like, Linux became popular quickly. People started handing out Linux CDs at conferences and in universities ( this was pre-WWW remember ). The Linux license meant that you could not charge for these though and, back then, distributing CDs was not cheap. So being an enthusiastic Linux promoter was a financial commitment ( the opposite of “free” ).
People complained to Linus about this. Imposing financial hardship was the opposite of what he was trying to do. So, to resolve the situation, Linus switched the Linux kernel license to GPL.
The Linux kernel uses a modified GPL though. It is one that makes it more “open” ( as in Open Source ) but less “free” ( as in RMS / FSF ).
Switching to the GPL was certainly a great move for Linux. It exploded in popularity. When the web become a thing in the mid-90’s, Linux grew like wild fire and it dragged parts of the GNU project into the limelight wit it.
As a footnote, when Linus sent this announcement that he was working on Linux, BSD was already a thing. BSD was popular in academia and a version for the 386 ( the hardware Linus had ) had just been created. As BSD was more mature and more advanced, arguably it should have been BSD and not Linux that took over the world. BSD was free both in terms or money and freedom. It used the BSD license of course which is either more or less free than the GPL depending on which freedoms you value. Sadly, AT&T sued Berkeley ( the B in BSD ) to stop the “free”‘ distribution of BSD. Linux emerged as an alternative to BSD right at the moment that BSD was seen as legally risky. Soon, Linux was reaching audiences that had never heard of BSD. By the time the BSD lawsuit was settled, Linux was well on its way and had the momentum. BSD is still with us ( most purely as FreeBSD ) but it never caught up in terms of community size and / or commercial involvement.
If not for that AT&T lawsuit, there may have never been a Linux as we know it now and GNU would probably be much less popular as well.
Ironically, at the time that Linus wrote this announcement, BSD required GCC as well. Modern FreeBSD uses Clang / LLVM instead but this did not come around until many, many years later. The GNU project deserves its place in history and not just on Linux.
As somebody who lives in an area with an active logging industry, I can tell you that parts of the world with an economic interest in their forests still have lots of trees whereas areas that do not are very likely to have destroyed most of theirs.
The relationship between paper use and the environment is not what you think it is.