Comment by tannhaeuser | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tannhaeuser | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one cautiously optimistic about this merger? RH has dominated Linux development for too long anyway, pushing systemd, namespaces, procfs and other crap, and making RHEL an overcomplicated jack-of-all-trades O/S which would only run with the specific gcc, glibc, and RH-specific kernel patches and build tools anyway (which is kind of the point of RHEL, and of IBM as well - PTF466735 anyone?). RH now being IBM will make people turn to Debian and derivatives such as Ubuntu and Devuan. The press release on redhat.com talks almost exclusively about "the cloud", but "the cloud" is, and always has been, antithetical to Unix (Unix being about site autonomy and simple tools working together). Why would indie devs and idealists want to contribute their efforts to enslaving people in "the cloud" anyway? "Cloud" stuff is also at odds with user freedom, and only seeks to make software runnable over shitty web frontends for undue profit and privacy invasion, when F/OSS software has been out there in abundance for over a decade. I hope we'll also see some love for the BSDs, and a renewed shared understanding that only POSIX and other standards guarantee long-term autonomy to both individuals and corporations alike.

Your post is mixing arguments with idealism and very specific angles, e.g. on what the cloud is and how it works.

I'm pretty sure RH means something completely different when they talk cloud.

Most of all, I think your post comes down to "RH is bad, systemd is bad, [...] it should die anyway".

> "the cloud" is, and always has been, antithetical to Unix (Unix being about site autonomy and simple tools working together)

Does the physical hardware being on the actual premises or not really have anything to do with "site autonomy" or the granularity of the toolchains?

In fact, can you even buy any viable physical hardware to run on your site that's not already a virtualised "cloud" with the real host OS firmly in the control of your corporate overlords, e.g. Intel ME and AMD PSP?

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the cloud is not simply 'server hosting' because, if that was the case we'd still be calling them VPS'.

"The cloud" is a set of APIs for provisioning but also a bunch of managed services that surround your instances, pub/sub, DNS, load balancers, managed SQL. All of this is almost designed to be a vendor lock-in.

However, disregarding the vendor lock-in: How does my OS integrating with AWS's APIs help my on-prem services?

> "The cloud" is a set of APIs for provisioning but also a bunch of managed services that surround your instances, pub/sub, DNS, load balancers, managed SQL. All of this is almost designed to be a vendor lock-in.

A lot of it is, but I strongly disagree that all of it is. Many of these are perfectly interchangeable with the exact same software (FOSS DBMS, web server, load balancer, etc.) running on a competitor's managed service, VPS or on your own premises. As for the services that aren't, I do think the IT architects and managers who agree to use them are absolutely crazy and ought to be fired. If all of them are fired, cloud providers would be forced to provide interoperable provisioning APIs and services or perish.

> However, disregarding the vendor lock-in: How does my OS integrating with AWS's APIs help my on-prem services?

I suppose it doesn't, but why should it? If you think they bloat up your local installation, maybe you can just not install the kernel modules/daemons/libraries in question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com