Red Hat is the source of the destruction of Linux

Free software doesn't care for competition. Free software that is malicious ought to be forked. There is nothing wrong with software integration. Stallman has absolutely no problem with Red Hat because they release their software under the GPL.

Stallman is not going to live forever. Red Hat could take over the organization owning the GPL liscense and change everything gpl3+ to be closed source software with no permission to redistribute. This is because the board of directors for GNU control changes to the liscense. What happens when that board becomes a (((board)))? (((They))) then change the liscense. While stallman is alive it will not happen without huge grassroots blowback.

No, they could not. They could add an additional license. They could not replace GPLv3, only supplement it.
The usual license text is:
>you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
But even if they could, that's not Red Hat's style. They have bought proprietary products to release them as free software. They make things free even if they don't need to. I'm not really a fan of Red Hat but they're not as bad as you suggest.

it all makes sense now

If you are a red-hat employee why did your fucking company let freedesktop.org go full retard by forcing the CoC (contributor covenant) on every project without asking anyone ?

This

Since when uniting means having project under cultist rules ?

>contributor-covenant.org/
I didn't know it had gotten this bad.

That's not the problem. It's obvious every company/organization will try to make their projects according to their needs. However, GTK and GNOME are not Red Hat products, they just took over the project and reject everything that doesn't align with whatever they want it to be.
For example: there has been a lot of criticisms to Nautilus because they've removed a lot of features (including, but not limited to, universal keyboard shortcuts); yet they haven't addressed any of them. Same thing with the new, retarded, GTK release cycle and naming scheme.

Software integration gives Red Hat too much leverage over other distributions, kills competition and innovation and undermines GNU's goal of being a fully libre OS by forcing users and developers alike to work with or around their products.
Open Source software is all about competition, Red Hat is going to make GNU into a privative OS in everything but license.

Yeah, you really shouldn't use a distro either put out by or used as a beta testing platform for a corporation.

openSuSE, fedora, **buntu are no gos.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic so here's the things.
The people who push CoCs do not care about computing.
They care about pushing their cultist political agenda and nothing else.
They don't care about people at all.
The creator of the Contributor covenant aka Coraline Ada Ehmke is a madman who persecutes people until they are fired from their job (or worse).
See this thread about that person:
oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/tech/res/765547.html#765799

Want more data on that ?

Drupal:
Karoly Négyesi (chx) ousted from the Drupal community for having a bdsm fetish
web.archive.org/web/20170324062618/https://www.drupal.org/association/blog/a-statement-from-the-executive-director
web.archive.org/web/20170325011911/https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-outing

Drupal leader who ask Torvalds to BTFO because he's not nice.
web.archive.org/web/20170327015744/http://drupal.sh/karoly-negyesi-chx-ousted-from-drupal-community
--We are now looking forward to Linus Torvalds to be shown the door from the Linux project. He has long steered it abusively and has even been identified on mass media publications as a verbally insulting jerk. Him being a white male, the epitome of exclusivity, is just the cherry on top.--

Torvalds honeypot attempt:
esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907

Freedesktop forces a CoC while not necessary
patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9685275/
patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9674617/

Coraline Ada Ehmke refuse to be judged by their own standards
github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/393

Lambdaconf
esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7095

Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs
esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918

CoC rejection in the NIM community
web.archive.org/web/20170525152209/https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/2332

There's also the ceo of mozilla who was purged from his own company, people banned on github for forking GPL projects, Francis rowe who tried to slander the FSF... and the lists never stops.
I hope you don't have people like this in Red-hat and you'll never have to work with them either.
In the community we are getting more and more angry about redhat either because they are forcing software in distributions or either because the design of the said software are an abomination.
But that's not the only thing to point out.
Anyway take care.

Fedora is the only beta testing platform there. Ubuntu is Canonical's main product, they just release it for free; and OpenSUSE is just SUSE Linux Enterprise but maintained and supported by the community instead of SUSE.

Red Hat has exactly zero leverage over any distribution that is not Red Hat. Red Hat has exactly zero ways to kill competition or innovation. People use Red Hat technology because they like it. If they don't like it, the solution is to invest their own effort into developing other technology. Red Hat can never stop other people to invest their own efforts to develop other technology.

There is nothing wrong with having a private GNU OS. Free software means users are allowed to keep their software private.

I'm not the Red Hat guy and I was being completely serious. This board really needs IDs.

You are the cancer that is killing FOSS. Free is bullshit we have shareware all over the internet we will never fix or see the source code for. Open source is where it is at. I want to verify with my own eyes that I am not being tricked or stolen from when I purchase something or download it. Open source software allows me to do that. If it's free that's great too but being able to compile it myself and look at the source code is what matters.

If red hat owned the liscenses for foss project AND (((GNU in the future))) released a new liscense they could change all future versions to closed source and detele all the source code of earlier versions like what github does with forks. It's a open takeover, once completed we are all fucked.

I don't care about open source. I care about free software. gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html . Free software means that users are always allowed to have freedom. Free software means users are allowed to have private software: this means users are not required to share the software that they have.

I don't care if they share it or not. I care if I can fix it in the future.

No source code means I put explicit trust in you, the software provider, not to fuck me, some random dude, and steal from me using your software.

If I had the source to said software(whether I share it or I am forbidden from sharing it) I can fix it myself and don't have to trust you not to fuck me.

This is where the GNU liscense fails. It means I put trust in GNU and the software source code creator not to change their lisences in the future.
A perfect example of this happening is open sound system. The lisence creator changed the liscense to be closed source code. You must put explicit trust in it's creator for such unpaid software. Sure people at the time could fork open sound system but those copies are long gone now because (((they))) closed such things down.

Redhat could do the same thing to many open source and free projects in the future IF they owned GNU also. I think they will too.

Stallman's ideals are great and all. But the liscense itself is fucked because of putting all your trust in GNU and the second liscense owner to not change future liscenses.

They are part of the todo group. Pure coincidence.

I don't think you understand the meaning of free software. When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

how much of Fedora is botnet? Is their firewall a botnet? Asking since I woke up after a fresh install with my laptop camera going on and off on its own.

Systemd's dns resolver is a botnet for sure. Samba is also a botnet because windows malware cross compatibility for delivery mechanisms. IPtables is not a botnet you dolt. Chrome and firefox are yet more botnet delivery mechanisms if you have javascript on OR (((they))) know you use fedora. Probably more I don't know of like modified kernel modules fucking shit up.

Also if you have that happening you need a new laptop. Even wiping hardrives is not enough anymore. It can't be trusted even if you remove the camera, mic, and speakers because intel kikezone and uefi/efi/bios malware if you have been specifically targeted.

Student here, how do I get a job coding part time for Red Hat when no one wants someone to only work part time

If your a pajeet or chink just apply you will get the job. If your white you must have 20+ years of military experience and be good at coding. And have a top secret clearence. And be a liberal. If your liberal after 20+ years of service than wtf apply now faggot.

All of the good developers work at for profit companies. If their FOSS isn't good enough for you, don't use it. It's kinda that simple.

If you don't trust GNU, just don't use the "any later version" clause.

You don't even have to trust GNU to use the "any later version" clause. Some people believe this clause means that the FSF can unilaterally change the licensing terms of the program. These people have a terrible interpretation of what the clause means. The only thing it means is that the distributor of the software can chose one or more versions of the GPL to distribute the software work.

Exactly. They don't get to change unless the owner of the liscense agrees to change. If Redhat buys GNU and makes a closed liscense and then changes all software they own the liscense for(a large amount currently) then we are fucked for future versions/updates. Combine that with git* and source* being closed by zog everywhere makes for no open source software. And the cornering of most of BSD and *NIX as a system.

But yea I will admit it's farfetched for them to do such a thing being (((cnniggers))).

...

GTK and Gnome are GNU projects. The GNU project uses Dbus because it's free (GPL) software. Freedesktop exists to coordinate standards between the desktops because there's a benefit if the projects coordinate in various common standards.

When I say it's the user's responsibility to develop software, the time involved is a part of that cost. Whether the time costs 5 years, 10 years or 20 years is all a normal part of software development.

I cannot accept this argument. This is an argument of laziness. When Stallman started GNU, the whole of the software world was against him. He knew that developing GNU was a monumental effort and that he had a very high chance of failing to realize a fully free operating system. Despite all this knowledge about the risk of failure, he still spent a significant part of his time developing GNU piece by piece. Stallman took responsibility and invested his effort.

People only use Windows because they like it. If they didn't like it, it is their own responsibility to do something about it.

Nobody pressured Canonical to kill Mir, Upstart or Unity.

Red Hat didn't do this overnight. There always were/are/will be other alternatives. You don't even need to use Linux if you want a free and open source OS.

nah, there's at least 30 employees left in that giant RH building downtown, he could be one of them.

It's not an argument of laziness, it's reality. GNU was completed because it had a huge amount of developers and contributors passionate about it's goal. It's not realistic to expect other people/projects to have the same resources. Look at Devuan. It took them 2 years to replace a single system component.
An there is a benefit to coordinate standards between web browsers, yet the W3C has been proven to be untrustworthy and to take decisions that aren't necessarily better for the Internet but their pockets.
They use it thanks to inertia. Microsoft got the monopoly thanks to monopolistic practices, just like Red Hat right now.
You have no idea of what you're talking about, then.

Not true. There are other open source operating systems, but the only operating system made from the ground up to be free is GNU.

...

GNU Hurd? How is that working out?

OpenBSD can be fully free if you compile your own kernel and are careful with ports.

It really is laziness. If a particular system costs $100000 and six months to develop, then that is the cost of developing the software. Nobody says that developing software is cheap. What I'm saying is that people need to take responsibility and invest the effort that's necessary to develop the software. People who just give and say "it takes too long" are simply lazy in my book. If it costs 5 years, then so be it.

GNU Hurd makes progress all the time. However, the pace of that development progress is slower than what people demand in a modern practical system. It would certainly help if more people took the effort to invest into the Hurd effort.

...

This goes against the principal the whole thing.
If the red-hat employee wants to id himself then he should either tripfag or PGP sign his posts.
I would prefer pgp tho.

this. come to Freenet FMS if you want pseudonymity

You know I've studied mesh networks for some time now and freenet is really not optimal for that.
Gnunet on the other hand is the long term solution.

wut ?
I'm not sure that you understand correctly the GPL.
You aren't required to share the source yes but only if you don't share it.

This is self-contradictory.

Yes but in that case if you have a friend who use the same software you can't legally unfuck him.

You don't understand or know how the GPL works.
If you put GPLv2 or GPLv3 then the software stays that way if has long has the developer want it's.
If the developer puts the GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ that means that there's a compatibility with GPLv2 or GPLv3 software and if there's a new GPL (v4) that means that all non mixed GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are acquiring the new rules of the GPLv4 if wanted.

>You must put explicit trust in it's creator for such unpaid software. Sure people at the time could fork open sound system but those copies are long gone now because (((they))) closed such things down.
The GPLv3 doesn't authorize that anymore.
They MIT and BSD can let anyone close the source of the software.

This

Even if Red Hat "bought" GNU, it couldn't legally close the source unless all contributors signed a copyright grant to existing code.

That's exactly the point I was making. Private software is permitted in free software. Proprietary software is a different matter: users are forbidden to have freedom whenever they install and use proprietary software.

Inequality is a sign of a good environment. Or would someone want to everybody be on the least common denominator? Stupid people can't be made intelligent, but intelligent people can be made dumber.
Equality means everyone equally stupid. Inequality means that those who deserve, flourish and bring everyone else benefits from this.

>Or would (((someone))) want to everybody be on the least common denominator?
Well when good is evil and evil is good. What other than to expect this from (((them))).

Most older white's in the tech field I would have hoped realised this atleast. You can't fix stupid.

You can teach stupid people mechanically learned actions with great amounts of repetition. But intuitiveness is forgone from the stupid. All they can do is repeat actions over great amounts of time with a tiny little bit of intuition. Not teach themselves and learn quickly through ideas.

This is also why Holla Forums exists. Because they realise things are unequal and deny the cult of equality. Granted they are fucked in otherways though.

But what if they were all dead and their copyright was null and void and belonged to GNU and (((REDHAT))) alone? Think about the long term game.

Is it required for you to wear that at your job?

The sad thing is that egalitarianism, in the original spirit of it, is meritocracy and therefore exactly what Holla Forums wants. Everyone gets the same chance, and the smart rise above the stupid. It's only recently that regressives have perverted that into "herpderp everyone must be exactly the same".

Yes

you have some tracking dots on your wall is it cum?

It got delayed because Linux was released. Even then, Linux-Libre is an official GNU project, therefore GNU is a complete operating system down to the kernel.

Not made to be a free system. Red Hat, Canonical and SUSE should move to BSD since they're damaging GNU with their "open source" bullshit.

No i'm not.
Now why would you say that?

Wow that's funny because the majority of kernel contributions come from Red Hat. Probably a lot of the maintainers too.
You have no idea what you're talking about, retard. Please stop shitposting on Holla Forums.

Do you think that jewish meme arrows make your comment seem more intelligent, or do you just use it so people know that you're a fucking retard right off the bat?

That's a scary thought. The only install that I had random kernel panic issues with was a RHEL install. The management ended up regretting buying that fucking licence. How the hell can your company release such trash as their core product when you have so many sticky fingers on the kernel? I'd trust more an Arch install than RHEL.

Go back to /r/linux

No, it's a fact. I'm sorry that you were too stupid to have known of this.
wew, a PANIC. You're so focused on larping about how you're some important admin (spoiler alert: glorified computer janitor) that you're telling me you can't use kdump and install symbols? Let's assume in this roleplaying scenario that it's actually a """RANDOM""" panic.
Why the fuck are you paying for a singular seat, fuckface? For support? Did you check the hardware compatibility list? Did you check the log for "this is not a software problem"? Did you analyze the dump that's obviously beyond your meager technical capacity and then escalate it to Red Hat support?
Why are you paying for a singular seat in the first place if you're not going to use the support? Are you some sort of fucking moron who doesn't know how to install CentOS? You can even upgrade straight to EL by installing a single package.
lmao. Yeah, you're fucking retarded. No big surprise that Holla Forums has been overrun with fucking retards.
I certainly know who's behind your posts, and it's an incompetent faggot who thinks he's hot shit.

Update From someone privy to information:
Paraphrase:
Plaintiffs have apparently been told that they need to bring their action
through the appropriate foundation and that that foundation is not
interested in legal action as it may cause corporate involvement to cease.
Spender has successfully forked Linux (and un-opensourced the derivative work)
and nothing will be done about it.

--
My thoughts:
Now, ofcourse, since Linus never required an assignment of copyright, each
plaintiff who has code that is modified by GRSecurity has standing to bring
an action.

However GRSecurity will attempt to argue that Linux is a work of Joint copyright.
If they were to successfully argue that then 50 percent of the contributors
are needed for an action to commence. Now Linux is not a work of Joint copyright,
instead it is a derivative work built upon a derivative work built upon ... etc,
but yes you need to argue against their defense as they will attempt to
show a court how linux is different from, say, a song, since it is a program
and takes longer to construct (even 20 years) etc. Additionally GRSecurity
will attempt to argue fair use via de minimus. This defense could work against
a lone plaintiff who's property is only slightly modified by GRSecurity.

For these reasons it is desirable to have a plaintiff that owns much of linux.
A small contributor would have much less of a chance of success.

Is it company policy to call adm^H^H^Hjanitors names when they say that your products are shit? After systemd, it's fucking obvious that you hate those janitors. Good thing that you market to the managers instead.
First, it was the choice of a clueless manager: It was another's vendor policy to require RHEL to get their useless support so he complied.
Second, you are missing the point. I never had a kernel panic on the other machines, which coincidentally didn't run RHEL or CentOS. They all just worked. No random issues, comfy as fuck. In my 20 years using gnu+linux, I can count on one hand the number of kernel panics that I ever had, even on my eclectic hardware at home running bleeding edge distros. If it is the same people who patch the broken kernels and who contribute to it, then yeah, it's scary as hell.

It's my personal policy to tell retards that they're fucking retarded.
Most likely a hardware problem, but since you're too fucking stupid to analyze a dump the world will never know. See, the problem with morons like you is that you don't understand how things actually work. You're incompetent, so you blame tools. It's not anything exclusive to janitoring, incompetent faggots are everywhere in all walks of life, using superstition to blame everything but themselves.

You know what would be retarded? To keep using tools that keep failing in many ways when there are other tools, cheaper with far better quality, that don't fail.
This hardware was working fine with all the other stuff we've thrown at it… but yeah, don't take responsibility for your poor excuse for a distro and blame the hardware.

Just stop roleplaying as an admin, it's embarrassing at this point, champ. No one wants your dumbass opinions.

Is that an argument?

Stop, just stop. You're making a fool of yourself.

No.

what do you do at redhat?

5RuHL5LQnT9G OA4EzBB9EATo

Kind of unrelated to the thread, but I'll ask since there are some read hats in here. Are many systems still running RHEL 6?

subvert linux and pay "grants" to distros to use their shitty pajeet written software so that way the communities of the other distros will all write the documentation for them and fix all the issues of the program for them, they can then use all this free info and free work to charge for tech support to the few thousand companies who pay for RH linux

Because fdo is almost as much a disease as LSB. What better way to kill it?

No one is paid grants, faggot. Everyone chose systemd because it's fact of matter better. Through mailing list discussions and debates, the kind that you would be banned from because you're an incompetent streetshitter. Ironic, really, considering you constantly whine about "pajeet" when you're some faggot who probably wouldn't be able to actually follow LKML.
You're a nigger, or at least you act like one with your asperger ramblings. Deal with it, systemd won because it was better than the status quo. No one cares about your alternative aspie inits, and no one is preventing you from using them. So drop the persecution complex, you fucking nigger.

It's certainly a better argument than yours, where the only thing you can fall back on is constantly implying "your company", as if I'm a Red Hat employee. Suck a fat one, and try again.

Very many.

Non-RH employee here, though I'm a Linux admin for the large (about 10,000 employees) company I'm at and about 60% of our servers are on RHEL6, with the rest being a mixture of RHEL7, Oracle EL, and Debian.

Also I love Redhat. They consistently make good software, and getting my RHCSA was one of the best career moves I could make. I get tons of offers because of it and I do full-time Linux admin work now.

Install Fedora.

How is F26? I haven't updated yet.

It's absolutely satisfying.

I don't give a shit whether you are on redhat's payroll or you work for Goodman Internet Marketing co, you don't shill for a transnational corporation for free.
You do realize where you are, right?

Telling you that you're a drooling fucktard (fact) isn't "shilling." Learn what shilling is, faggot. EL kernel is just a frozen upstream with occasional backports. That's why you're a goddamn retard.
On a board that's recently been populated by screeching aspergers. If I had my way all fucking retards would be permab&, but unfortunately the moderators don't ban for tech support/consumer recommendations anymore so faggots like you stick around and shitpost.
And, nah, they're not, nor was anyone, banned for "disagreeing." It's just that retards like you don't know how ML discussions work because you grew up on AOL and think you're entitled to shitpost directly into people's inboxes.
Nah, doesn't work that way. You get banned on the ML because you're a faggot who shitposts. Surprise surprise.

Welcome to 8ch where you can post whatever the fuck you want becuase we aren't libtarded cianiggers who love shitty waifues that are whores.

Don't forget that just because something is popular does not mean it is stable or secure, just look at windows and redhat linux for proof.

Are you some sort of fucking retard or are you just so frustrated that you got called out that you're in tears and rambling at this point?
What the fuck are you talking about, retard? I'm not talking about Holla Forums. Do try to keep up. Holla Forums has nothing to do with retards getting banned from ML's.

Something is not right, here. If their kernel is just upstream with some backports, why the fuck do they behave like kikes with their shekels?
lwn.net/Articles/430098/
theregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell_with_change_to_source_code_packaging/
And that's for the ancient rhel 6. With rhel 7, it's even better, the source is not available unless you buy their shit.

With the Red Hat distros of GNU/Linux, the only real problem is their inclusion of proprietary software which violates the user's freedoms. Fedora, for example, doesn't appear to include nonfree userspace programs, but it does include binary blobs in the kernel linux.

FUCK REDHAT!

"First they came for the init . . ."

Just because they don't give you a VCS log doesn't mean anything's being obscured, you moron. You download the kernel source, it's right there.
But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

Go ahead and give me a link, chaim.

community.redhat.com/centos-faq/#_will_this_new_relationship_change_the_way_centos_obtains_red_hat_enterprise_linux_source_code
git.centos.org/repositories/
git.centos.org/summary/rpms!kernel.git
boy, you sure are fucking stupid

There's no kernel source or patches in there... That's why I ask you for a link. Look at the goddamn gitignore.

Are you seriously this brain damaged? Have you ever built a srpm?
vault.centos.org/7.3.1611/updates/Source/SPackages/
Here's the latest kernel:
vault.centos.org/7.3.1611/updates/Source/SPackages/kernel-3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.src.rpm
This
git.centos.org/tree/rpms!kernel.git/c7

This is the spec and the patches, debranding, etc, of course they're not keeping gigabytes worth of compressed, random tars in git versioning.

You're not an admin, stop roleplaying as one. Just as I thought, you're incompetent, and don't know the first thing. Please, just stay off of Holla Forums. You've already embarrassed yourself enough.

Thanks. I fucked up here. On the other hand, it's hard to say with a straight face that their kernel is just upstream with the occasional patches when you consider the large number of changes between the actual upstream and the source that they ship. When I compare it with the one from debian oldstable, the latter only has ~69/728 the number of changes compared from to the redhat one.
Oh please, go roll up in your weighed blanket.

You guys need PocketCHIP. Two words for why: OWNER:^)CONTROL

...

lmfao Linux kernel is pure script kiddie garbage and so is every UNIX. kys. i am the guy who you replied to, not the other guy.

holy shit he's one of these retards. he's too proud that he knows all the lingo that he can't see the pile of shit he's sitting in. the bullshit code you suck the dick of is just as bad as the likes of corporate Java EE or PHP. You should take a hint that you're on bad ground when Linus himself admits he doesn't care about security.

I said it's a frozen version, faggot, with backports for security and features that their customer would want. Typically, it's a branch maintained by the foundation (Torvalds) plus all of the above. EL 7 is on the Torvald's LTS, basically.
It gets more complicated when you get into their new "freezing" cycles but it doesn't change the fact that you're sperging out about a hypothetical roleplaying scenario in which you're incapable of analyzing dumps because you're incompetent.

Torvalds doesn't care about security when it gets in the way of speed, breaking backwards compatibility, and sanity. When it doesn't contradict any of those goals, it's not hard to get a patch past him.
I imagine you're a GRSec dicksucker. Spengler's patches were shittier than Red Hat's tars when it came to a source dump, so you have no room to talk here. But at least Red Hat makes the effort to upstream where it makes sense.

You know that's naive, Miguel. Compare the Debian kernel to the redhat one. To keep the comparison relatively fair, I compare the debian oldstable kernel (3.16) and the el7 kernel (3.10). The debian kernel has 722 patches, yielding ~396160 lines changed. Looking at the patches, it's what you described:
The redhat kernel has an unspecified number of patches, since they only provide the pre-patched source, yielding ~4194010 lines changed. Unless you take the time to look at every changes, you have no idea of what the patches are doing, and don't pretend that you know for sure that they're only
To give you a better idea, if I compare linux 3.10 to linux 3.16, I get ~4615380 lines changed. In other word, the number of lines changed in the redhat kernel is ~9/10th the number of lines changed for six minor versions of linux. In your opinion, do you think it is reasonable to consider that maybe the redhat kernel is not really linux anymore?

To close the loop, yeah, maybe there was a hardware issue and I was negligent not to investigate the source, but the reality is that Windows and some Linux based systems, with actual linux kernels, had no issues with it, only redhat and their kernel were failing. And you know what, the kernel was not the only headache, some packages were downright broken. Sure, we could go whine to redhat support that they did a shit job but at the same time, we lost all confidence in this company and we preferred to fix their shit ourselves. It is not normal to tolerate not getting what we paid for: it was supposed to be a premium linux distribution, but we got south american tier garbage instead. I'd be more confident to run Void on servers than redhat software.

BTW, most Windows admins I've met were far more critical of microsoft than you are toward redhat with your unconditional fanboyism.

No, I'm calling you a retarded faggot for not knowing how to install symbols and analyze dumps. Panics happen.
I thrashed my SSD just for you, bb
Versus v3.10, original release tag back in 2013:
From 3.10.107, June 27th of this year:

Roughly closer to original LTS tag but a lot of backports. Mostly added drivers in both cases. It's not hard to take Greg's LTS branch and do this comparison yourself.
That faggot hasn't been relevant in a long time, where'd you pull that out of your ass?
Why are you still roleplaying? You're some fag who doesn't know how to build an SRPM and you're here dreaming up some scenario that you got very angry over your imaginary kernel panic and you didn't bother to start off with support for the product you just paid for, let alone were you capable of actually "fixing this shit yourselves" as you put it because you're incompetent and can't analyze dumps.

Wow, you have a SSD? I'm so envious!
That's still a fucking lot. You didn't disproved anything.
You remind me of him. A brown dude from a third world shithole with an unconditional love for microsoft, a transnational corporation. Change microsoft for redhat and that looks quite similar to you.
Stop projecting, Miguel. Unlike you, it doesn't give meaning to my life to call REDHAT SUPPORT if I can deal with the issues myself. And calling support for a minor issue is a waste of time. You don't seem to understand the meaning of "random panic": it occurs once in a while, ""randomly"".
Rarely, an exceptional event. Maybe you should give gentoo a try to see what gnu+linux looks like outside of your REDHAT safe space.

I proved you're a moron who doesn't know how to actually diff.
lmao, you seriously going to go this route pajeet? I'm not the one who's getting angry over a scenario that only happened in my mind.
You just said that they were random panics and packages were completely broken. Now which is it, roleplayer?

It's a quality issue. My point from the start, Miguel.

None of your story makes any sense and continuing to discourage me from pointing this out this just shows that you know your dumbass roleplaying wasn't very thorough. Just stop, for your own sake.

Keep sending your resume to REDHAT and follow your dreams!

come at me niggers

Alternatively it could just

You missed a spot, [email protected]/* */

yep i know

Yeah that would allow someone to not contribute back to GPL 3.x projects, but it wouldn't close the existing GPL 3.x version without that copyright grant.

Who uses Red Hat anyways other than CIAniggers? Why would you pay for them?

...

holyshit I must have struck a nerve with this systemd apologist

It looks like they're creating their own file system now. github.com/stratis-storage

It's anagram for statsi with a extra r because they are cucks.
They aren't even being that creative those faggots. Let me guess, the dbus subsystem communicating with statsi is used to communicate with systemd to store filesystem metadata in its own file because (((performance)))?

Red Hat sell service contracts. You buy Red Hat because you want them to support your Red Hat system installations.

Newsflash

Linux has been a corporate product for a decade now.

Of course Red Hat, Google, IBM and so on have an incentive to have a centralized and stable system that they can deploy in their corporations and sell to customers.

The only ones not getting it are freetards as usual who treat a license as if it was the bible.

By "not getting it" you mean not taking it up the ass paying for shitty software? Instead anyone can customize gpl software without paying (((you))) a shekel. Even if most software today is shit.

If you enjoy taking it up the ass so much then keep paying for backdoored and theiving software made by camelfuckers who care not for security.

please don't make these arguments

You are confused if you believe that our goal is the GPL license. You are confused if you believe that our goal is zero cost software. We are happy for everybody to make a big profit by selling free software. The GPL is the means into ensuring that our software can't be forked into proprietary software.

...

Are you seriously implying that non Jews are supposed to make no profit and that as soon as they make a profit, they instantly become Jews?

It's funny because red hat applications are garbage

sup my ninja

RedHat is pretty much my dream company. I work as a Linux admin currently and they pretty much made enterprise server Linux what it is. Sure, they've had some stupid things at play too, Poettering probably being the big one, hopefully he'll get kicked eventually for being an idiot and someone competent will take over systemd (or scrap it).

But how cool would it be to work on Red Hat's Technical Support Team.

I swear once I get my RHCE I'm gonna apply. I play around regularly in my home lab and I'm all about improving my skills so I have a shot one day.

Given the amount of basic necessary shit they own in the Linux ecosystem, your statement is comparable to saying the debt-wageslave-based banking system is not evil because nobody forces you to take credit, loans or mortgages, or to open a bank account.

Red Hat apparently hires children now.

This is what happens when you let your employer brainwash you. Fucking sad.
A fucking children that plays with anime toys, wears a red fedora and goes to work carrying a fucking backpack (are you 15 or what?).
Will defend his exploitative employer using stale slogans designed by people wearing suits who do not play with anime toys, do not wear red fedoras and certainly do not go to work with a fucking backpack.

Keep being angry, little boy, because if you some day realized by chance how much of a cuck you are you would probably kill yourself out of shame. Keep being angry like your life depended on it.

Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is both unfair and confusing. Please call the complete system GNU/Linux, both to give the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the kernel alone.

The GNU project owns GNU and the Linux project owns Linux. Red Hat technology is a small portion of any GNU/Linux system and can be exchanged for anything.

Google gentoo is way better than Red Hot.

Distributions of Linux usually use the GNU userland. GNU is not the operating system in a Linux distribution. Linux is.

I'm not that poster. I only made these.

You guys should add IDs to this board if you're so susceptible to paranoia.