Oracle, SUSE, and CIQ Go After Red Hat with Open Enterprise Linux Association
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. And if I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server.
Why would I want to use forks of RHEL instead of the 3 real and supported RH distros?
I don't know the exact limitations, but for a personal home lab that seems fine. For companies, I imagine they could either pay proper for RHEL, use free CentOS Stream or Fedora, or some other server distro like Ubuntu or SUSE. Why is there such a need for RHEL specifically?
Just a guess, but I'd posit that revenues from RHEL support contracts pay the salaries of CentOS Stream and Fedora developers and maintainers.
I could be completely wrong, but given that the latter two feed the former, it would make sense.
Small point of info:
Only one (1) of these companies has its own distro family: SUSE.
OUL is a CentOS clone. So is Rocky.
Why does OUL exist -- there are two _real_ stories.
[1]
Oracle wanted Jboss. RH bought JBoss, allegedly to spite Oracle. Oracle retaliated with a RHEL clone.
Side note: I used to work on some JBoss documentation. Probably a few lines I wrote are still in there. The strong feeling I got inside RH was "we hate Java and want to kill it." Weird when you're a staffer working on Java products.
[2]
Oracle was considering a hostile takeover of RH and launched a RHEL clone to make the share price drop.
It didn't work.
Note, these 2 theories are not mutually exclusive.