But it does matter. Maybe not to you directly, but the January 6th treason attack was a direct result of his influence. Obviously people who follow him are massive bell ends, but they still matter and they still vote. America’s democracy is far from perfect, and has definitely struggled to cope over the past few years, but it put him in the most powerful position in the world for four years and despite all the evidence, enough people are still supporting him that a second term still can’t be ruled out.

It beggars belief, it really does, but you really should care about it and a single person being a martyr has historically changed the world.

He’s hardly the first rich American to escape justice if he continues to do so. Rich folk in America have literally gotten away with murder. (OJ for one)

Those fines are insultingly small. But putting him in jail would only make him more of a martyr. The law is still struggling to cope with this man.

Why does America have so many really old politicians?

As someone who was working in IT support at the time - YAY! NO MORE FUCKING TRUMPET WINSOCK!

Exactly. It exposes the bias in the headline wording designed to trigger a reaction because this is Amazon, but companies move all the time, and a percentage of the workforce will always prefer not uprooting themselves, no matter how good or bad their employer.

“independent” - Is it though?

Redhat are the major sponsors of Fedora, much as they sponsored Centos before taking it over and killing it in classic “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”.

I have doubts about the future of the entire EL ecosphere - I know not many enterprise level organisations are investing deeply into it right now, whether that’s with RHEL or a rebuild. Too much doubt about Redhat’s intentions with RHEL and the future of it.

Have you checked syslog and apts logs?

Also, simply uninstalling and reinstalling Firefox shouldn’t lose all your settings. Silly question, but are you sure you’re the same local user? Also, Firefox syncs this stuff so all sounds odd.

That’s the joke, but it’s really not true.

You can write unintelligable code in most languages.

Perl’s syntax is fine, and you can write beautiful code with it - but it will also let you write fugly code that works.

I think those who say this seriously just don’t understand Perl, or even programming generally. (Whilst I like Perl, I’m also proficient in C, Java, JS, Python, PHP, Bash and probably a few more, so I’m not just promoting the only thing I know.)

Perl. Its installed everywhere I need to run it and stuff I wrote over 20 years ago is still doing exactly what it should.

Might be worth waiting for some news outlets you’ve actually heard of to start carrying the story before you break out the balloons.

This feels like a cynical ploy for funding, like almost every “miracle battery” story carried over the past ten years.

Name the decade without naming the decade.

Poor lass. I don’t think it was very easy being her.

That’s a surprisingly well written article.

You make it sound like there’s a plan involved.

That’s a whole lot of “fuck spez”. Well done, strangers.

What actually red hat wants?

All the control and all of the money.

Besides that, I suspect they have no clear vision. And if they do, they are absolutely terrible at communicating that.

Agree on point of detail, but the “drama” is the reason for the fuss. Redhat’s communication, especially to the community that helped build and support it, has always been patchy, but over the past few years it’s been apalling. As others have pointed out, they’ve insulted a lot of us, specifically for not contributing upstream - so it’s not unexpected for them to be called on it when someone does.

I think the EL sphere as a whole (including RHEL and all up and downstreams) is getting drastically weakened directly because of Redhat’s poor decision making, and that’s a shame for all of us.

As a UK citizen, I totally support this. The more that the average voter is disconvenienced because of proposed law changes like this and the (unenforcable) anti-porn laws, the more likely they are to actually pressure their MP or change how they vote.

Your headline is sensationalist and inaccurate, and your description has only partial truths. You need to appreciate some history to understand that Rocky is not for profit and why. This isn’t anti-Alma, which was founded and is supported by Cloudlinux - a commercial company by the way - because that’s not actually important either.

Rocky Linux is owned by RESF which is owned by Greg Kurtzner, backed by a board of trustees. Greg, together with Jason “Rocky” McGaugh, created CentOS Linux back in 2004. Since then, Redhat “Embraced, extended and then extinguished” CentOS Linux through gaining legal ownership of the project and its name, and control of its board of trustees.

When Redhat (through control of CentOs’ board) finally pulled the rug (with very little notice) on CentOS 8 in 2020, Greg figured he could correct the organisational mistakes made with CentOs that allowed Redhat to kill it. He talks about that here In honour of Jason, who has since died, he named the new distro Rocky.

Rocky must be owned by a legal entity, and they chose a PBC - the reasoning is described very clearly on Rocky’s website here and it’s made clear that it is not for profit. It’s possibly that might change, sure, but somewhere along the line you have to look at the bigger picture and decide to trust a distro. I trust Rocky. I also trust Debian and OpenSuse. And, because they’ve also proved themselves honest and transparent ** despite being founded and sponsored by a commercial company** , I trust Alma. All are good choices. The beautiful part about all these good, open and free distributions is you can choose which you want to use, that you’re not locked into them and whether you want to contribute or not.

There /is/ a link to CiQ with Rocky via Greg, and CiQ is commercial, but Rocky itself is not, is definitely NOT for profit, and there’s no need to pay CiQ a bean if you don’t want to.

Anyone can pick holes in any distribution. They can take any part of the legal structure and present it to suit their own agenda, or misunderstand the whole.