this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
113 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

69 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
 

Our subscriptions mostly pay for the salesmen and the ads. They sell ads first, IT second. So I'm not gonna cry for RedHat. The image of the poor developers working in a cave, struggling to make money is only in our mind. They had a perfectly functional model but decided to sabotage some of it to try to squeeze even more money.

Operating expense, in thousands (2019,2018):

Sales and marketing 1,378,278 1,195,286

Research and development 668,542 578,330

General and administrative 304,766 239,316

Total operating expense 2,351,586 2,012,932

Let's stop talking about Fedora/redhat, we are literally doing their job for them, for free.

Oh, btw, their gross profit is mentioned here.

Gross profit (thousands) 2,863,818 2,488,664

Net income (thousands) 433,988 261,851

That's why I had such bad support experience, because they chose to hire sales people instead of engineers. You have a better chance of being hired by redhat if you are a salesman. It's as Steve Jobs said, when the sales people take the power in the company.

"If you were a ‘product person’ at IBM or Xerox: so you make a better copier or better computer. So what? When you have a monopoly market-share, the company’s not any more successful. So the people who make the company more successful are the sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the ‘product people’ get run out of the decision-making forums."


The core of their business is made by the open source community. If they need our help for something, it's from saving them from drowning into money.

We need to jump ship from redhat just like we did from reddit. This is also the perfect opportunity to think about technical solutions on how to use the fediverse to finance the developers of the open source community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

My question is.. has the reason RHEL and centos been as popular as it has been simply because of a 10 yr enterprise support term this entire time or something else?

I get Ubuntu Server only lasts for 5yr - unless you go spend for the extended support.. but was 5yr LTS from ubuntu server really that make it or break it for people setting up solutions for companies? I feel like the upgrade path is also pretty painless on a 4-5yr cycle as well most of the time. I get it would be even nicer to set something and forget it for a decade - but reality is the 10yr term could be anywhere along the line, not like a new release was happening every year or 2 I doubt. I mean LTS does have that sorta overlap every couple of years so I guess maybe so did centos and RHEL, but still.

Tools are often built of specific and older versions still as well and with containerization being what it is now.. I feel like Redhats big advantage of 10yr support periods is kind of diminished from what it was in the 90's or early 2000's.