@glyph I really dislike these takes, given that RH has in fact contributed a ton to the software they include in their distributions and to the Linux ecosystem as a whole.

I also worry what this does to ongoing conversations about sustainable OSS maintainership if our knee-jerk reaction is to say we expect to get not just the software but also the ongoing maintenance gratis and that complainers are to be shunned and mocked.

@coderanger @glyph My issue is with all the hot takes premised on RH being a mere repackager. Which they are not.

I don’t know what the right way to try to get paid for a service like RHEL is, but I’m tired of takes that pretend there’s nothing of value added by RH.

@ubernostrum @coderanger I'm clearly being a little reductive here, but if you want some nuance:

I'm reacting to https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes which is a tone-deaf mess of a statement. There's a lot to dislike, but I am annoyed specifically at the claim that Red Hat rebuilding *my* code largely unmodified by integrating it into their build toolchain is "adding value", but other people rebuilding *their* code largely unmodified by integrating it into their toolchains is *not* adding value.

@glyph @coderanger

My issue with this specific case is that Red Hat isn't just providing "infrastructure" or whatever. They are an actual real honest-to-goodness genuine producer of and contributor to Free and Open Source software, and also a paying employer of contributors and maintainers in the F/OSS world. And a really big and significant one, in their niche. The fact that their primary niche isn't *our* primary niche doesn't change that.

And like 95% of the complaints about their changes are from people who used one of the repackaged distros because they wanted the (perceived) improved stability/quality that Red Hat provided, but without paying what Red Hat charges. And as I understand it they still have free or cheap options for open-source projects that need them.

So I really really think that no matter how much someone dislikes RH or IBM as companies, or dislikes corporate statements, the reductive hot takes are a bad look. And I still don't know the right way for RH to make a business out of what they do, but I still think it hurts all OSS maintainers to just reflexively attack them for trying.

@jason Well, for one thing I'm right.

For another, it's not "running interference". If people want to write critiques of the changes, they should do so! I'm just saying that I'm not a fan of the reductive hot takes, and I don't think they accomplish anything useful (in fact, I think they do active harm).

For yet another, I know plenty of people who work for or have worked for Red Hat. They're not faceless corporate drones; they're friends and colleagues, and seeing their hard work reduced to the "I made this" meme, and them dehumanized behind sneering at a corporation, is not something I care much for.

And finally, a big downside is that once you allow reductive angry hot takes at unsympathetic targets, you are on the way to allowing them at what previously would have been sympathetic targets. That's happened too much already, and I'd prefer it not happen any more, thanks.