08.09.20

If We Weren’t Silencing Founders, Critics and People We Just Don’t Like

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 7:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2020 figosdev

Be quiet
Chapter 14: If We Weren’t Silencing Founders, Critics and People We Just Don’t Like; Originally posted in a similar form in March

Summary: “In the long run, history is rarely very kind to tyrants, especially the ones who did little more than lie to people and demand things that served no real purpose.”

I don’t suffer under the illusion that everybody has a right to your attention span. In fact I’m absolutely in favour of you having all sorts of tools for ignoring people you don’t like, where such tools are practical. They aren’t practical when it comes to working in a team, and they can’t (and shouldn’t) create a world where everybody hears exactly what they want all of the time.

“A world where everybody hears exactly what they want, all the time, would be like a world full of only children.”I’m starting out with a side point or two, sort of as a disclaimer, but a world where everybody hears exactly what they want would be an emotionally and psychologically stunting world to live in. Although population growth will likely prove to be a greater concern, people have long argued that having an only child will rob them of many opportunities to grow and learn to get along with other people in their formative years. A world where everybody hears exactly what they want, all the time, would be like a world full of only children. It would be like a world full of Donalds.

In the future, if — and likely when it becomes crucial for people to have only one child or fewer, we don’t want to compound that with a world where everybody walks around with augmented earplugs and augmented VR headsets, immersed in a narcissist’s dreamworld. Those people will never grow. We are already living that way now, to some degree — having our reality constantly mediated by 5 (until recently, 6) corporations that own 90% of the media. The dreamworld we are constantly tied into is the dreamworld of whatever these corporate assholes want us to feed from. We can all help to build the pyramids for these CEOs and “extraordinary” middle managers.

Still it’s precisely because of those media companies, along with the simple fact that it’s our right — that I’m in favour of you having all sorts of tools to mediate the media on your own behalf; to decide how much control or influence you do and don’t let them have over you.

“Plenty of people are aware of the fact that “content” moderation itself is out of balance, that our bastions of “freedom” and once at-least-superficially-grassroots activism are becoming more corporate, and for that sort of takeover to work our “activism” needs to be moderated just like everything else owned by media monopolies.”What I’m against is you taking too much control on “behalf” of others. Giving that power to the sort of people who would want very much of it is a recipe for more than disaster, but for a world where people are more often controlled, misled and lied to. We’ve heard the excuses, and we’ve witnessed the results. And while some of us made predictions along these lines (and hoped to be mistaken) there are more and more people who know what we’re talking about now. We see the real world effects, versus the alleged benefits of this sort of control.

It’s really beside the point to say that this sort of control always existed; the problem isn’t that some people are moderators, the problem is that we do better with everything in moderation — including moderation. Plenty of people are aware of the fact that “content” moderation itself is out of balance, that our bastions of “freedom” and once at-least-superficially-grassroots activism are becoming more corporate, and for that sort of takeover to work our “activism” needs to be moderated just like everything else owned by media monopolies.

“It’s the job of every propaganda marshal to make everything bad sound like something good — and everything good sound like something bad: Censorship is good, unfettered speech is a plague, wasn’t it always this way?”Monopolies and grassroots do not mix — grassroots means we all make our decisions, monopoly means those in power make the decisions. And those talking about “consequences” are pulling a fast one, because in many instances they really mean “consequences” even for us making the right decisions — the ones that favour people over monopolies. It’s the job of every propaganda marshal to make everything bad sound like something good — and everything good sound like something bad: Censorship is good, unfettered speech is a plague, wasn’t it always this way?

Well, no. But it typically is that way, when things are very, very wrong.

So next they say it isn’t censorship, but we know they’re just redefining censorship to exclude their own acts — that’s convenient. Then they claim ownership of the communities they are put in charge of — before, it was our community collectively. Now, it is less ours, because a “community leader” or “volunteer” comes in to decide who gets to keep their community and who is excluded in the name of inclusion. You start with the most obvious annoyances first, and build a rapport over it. This isn’t censorship, it isn’t restructuring free, grassroots association — this is “community building,” you say.

But we know it isn’t really about the community you think you own, because you don’t just drive people out of the community. You also penalise people for simply associating with the people you’ve driven out. And that’s exactly the moment when you’ve built a cult, by the way. A community can only control what happens inside the community.

“…it is about selling off communities and about changes in ownership — ownership of people, their associations, and their spare time.”A reasonable amount of “control” is not a prescription to be forced into people 3 times a day, but only in situations where it is absolutely needed. Moving from exception to rule is dismissed as “it was always this way,” but moving from exception to rule actually proves that it wasn’t. It’s much closer to a 180 degree turnaround in the way things are done. And it’s no accident — because again, it is about selling off communities and about changes in ownership — ownership of people, their associations, and their spare time. Which is a nice way of saying “indentured servitude.”

A community takes charge of its own events when it has no other means of moving forward, but communities don’t lean on heavy campaigns of propaganda, trying to control everyone’s thinking and trying to control what people inside the community do, even when they are outside its borders.

Once a community lays claim to things that happen on the outside, they have reached a cult status. We’ve known for years, it’s public knowledge that these cult tactics are used in corporations — Apple, with their extreme levels of secrecy (beyond simple trade secrets) to the point of absurdity (we’ve talked about how that makes it easier to own and control the tech press), Google with their surveillance of workers when not on the campus, and Microsoft, with their heavy-handed harassment of critics. All of these tactics are used by cults, and increasingly these cult tactics are being used by so-called (former) “communities.”

“So I advise everyone to consider relabeling “apathy” altogether. Call it “despair” instead.”But all of this has already been said, and none of this is the point of this article. The reason these things are worth repeating, is because all of these things are connected to, relevant to the actual point — which is the apathy we find everyday in the world around us. Why do so few people care about the things that matter most?

This is my theory about that: a lot more people care than we realise.

We wouldn’t know — because when somebody does care, they are frequently made unwelcome. They are smeared by these cults, and they are kicked out of their communities. Straw men are trotted out like thought militias, to find every possible reason to minimise, dismiss and distort the critiques, complaints and even the solutions proposed even (and especially) by people we have long respected.

“Because we are kicking out and silencing the very people who would inspire them, the very people they would understand and relate to.”But many of these people were respected for sticking their neck out, for their unconventional thinking, for being unafraid of the “consequences” of being unconventional — or for not suffering to bend over backwards to please unreasonable and demanding (narcissistic, controlling) people.

If this really is a campaign of silence like we suggest, then you may have a whole world of people who are waiting for a sign — waiting for a leader — waiting for the inspiration to be better than they are. And it’s a shame that not everybody feels they have, or even does have it in them to be the leader or the inspiration that they want to see in the world.

But the truth is that most people do not stick their neck out. By definition — most people are not unconventional. And many who do have the dedication to a cause, necessary to become that person, are exactly the sort of person we keep kicking out of the little cults we used to call “home.”

So everyone we think of as apathetic, are they really? Or are they simply missing the catalyst that would drive them to be part of the global efforts we need to stand against hegemony? We’ve taken away — stifled, worked to eliminate the very thing that would drive them to do more.

So I advise everyone to consider relabeling “apathy” altogether. Call it “despair” instead. Why do so many people have it? Because we are kicking out and silencing the very people who would inspire them, the very people they would understand and relate to.

“…you can’t moderate everything all the time, because if you do, then you create a dictatorship.”You can run your community however you want, really. But you can’t run people’s lives everywhere they go, and call yourself a community. You can’t split up families and tell people who they’re allowed to be friends with. And you can’t moderate everything all the time, because if you do, then you create a dictatorship.

There isn’t any real way around this. If you do what a dictatorship does, then you are a dictatorship. No place on earth was a dictatorship from day one; dictatorships are established as people gain more control over every action of the people underneath them. So it’s worth pointing out that all dictatorships started out as non-dictatorships. The fact that what you call a “community” actually used to be one is irrelevant — you aren’t running it like one anymore, so it no longer is one.

People aren’t apathetic, they’re stifled. And to the so-called “community manager” corporate shills doing this — it’s your attitude, your excuses, and your straw men and dishonest attacks that are stifling everybody who stays under your thumb. They know they won’t be allowed to lead, won’t be allowed to speak freely, won’t be allowed to choose their own friends, without you trying to punish them and steal their work with your lying. You’ve taken ownership of all of that “on their behalf.”

“People aren’t apathetic, they’re stifled. And to the so-called “community manager” corporate shills doing this — it’s your attitude, your excuses, and your straw men and dishonest attacks that are stifling everybody who stays under your thumb.”Some of them do believe you, when you say it’s for their own good. But even if they don’t, they won’t show it. So how would we know?

We call that apathy, but I’m beginning to doubt it. Once there are enough people who stand against that, once there are enough people to build something stronger than the Great Big Lie you perpetrate, gradually more and more people care again — more and more people stand up, and shed this so-called “apathy” you worked to instill in them.

History shows this in many instances, but everytime a new regime crops up, it seems like the worst one ever — and the resulting apathy appears more complete than ever before.

In the long run, history is rarely very kind to tyrants, especially the ones who did little more than lie to people and demand things that served no real purpose. There’s always a reason given, of course! And its generally based on some kernel of truth to make it easier to believe.

We read these old stories, and tut and say we are now too wise to let that sort of thing happen on our watch. When it does, it does a great deal of damage. Eventually people will lead them out of this, and you’re only slowing them down for a time.

Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)

I Would Have Supported the Coup (Under Very Different Circumstances)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 4:02 am by Guest Editorial Team

2020 figosdev

Index

Train coupe
Chapter 13: I Would Have Supported the Coup (Under Very Different Circumstances)

Summary: Richard Stallman’s (rms) ordeals are showing us how not to deal with a founder; this is how power transition could be done instead, according to figosdev

I was not involved in the coup against rms, though I would have participated in it — if it had been very different in its nature.

I will outline a better coup here, which is close to what I originally called for and much farther from what happened instead.

“These days, the FSF only listens to money — and only to big money at that.”The coup took most people by surprise, including me. The one I’d proposed was as much of a rhetorical device as anything. It’s true that I predicted rms being ousted, though it happened much sooner (and it was much dirtier in its tactics) than I had thought likely.

The coup I would have liked would have two primary objectives:

1. Choose / Acclimate a successor for rms (this was a goal of mine)

2. Get the FSF to listen to its members

In hindsight, this coup was somewhat pointless because:

1. It wasn’t my intention to choose a successor, but rather to let everyone already in charge do so. My list of suggestions included the person (Alex Oliva) who actually stands in place of rms now. It also included some other people on the board. It did NOT include John Sullivan, who I have long said was too middle-of-the-road for a leader, but good for the position he already had. In light of the years events, I retract the latter part of the statement.

2. The FSF has never cared what its members think, and now it never will. The idea of getting the FSF to listen to its members was a naive fantasy. These days, the FSF only listens to money — and only to big money at that.

3. Corporations did it first.

Techrights has traced the FSF’s “love of money” all the way back to 2014. It’s interesting to note that 2014 is also the year when I stopped believing in Debian — and the year that I have long considered the point or past the point of “Peak Freedom” in terms of software.

Other important differences between my plan and their coup include:

1. I would have supported a coup that was Honest, which existed primarily to help the FSF, not primarily to screw over and devastate rms.

2. The only goal regarding rms was to get him to step down (even gradually) as FSF president — not to be silenced as a speaker, not to be removed from GNU, not to resign from the board. The way it was done instead was completely asinine, unless the goal was to do harm to the FSF and the movement.

3. It would have protected the legacy of the FSF, including that of its founder.

And here is what happened instead:

The coup was completely dishonest, and was NOT against only rms.

The coup was (as I predicted nearly a year before it happened) against both rms and his supporters — against the Free Software movement itself, and designed to weaken its position against monopolies that don’t care about your freedom. It has done exactly this.

It has removed rms (with NO GOOD REASON) from the board of directors, which in my opinion makes the remaining board itself illegitimate, fraudulent and next to useless. Any action from a board which loses its most prominent founding member under false pretenses is not worth taking seriously — nor is the organisation.

The fraudulent reorganisation and actions taken in bad faith have put the FSF against its own mission, and in practical terms have turned the FSF itself into a scam, asking for money to support a cause which the new organisation has itself worked to dismantle. Throwing money at corruption fixes nothing.

If that work was over and being reversed, that would be one thing. But that is not what has happened.

Between what did happen and what I proposed, one commonality is that Alex Oliva was one of the people I thought might manage to lead the FSF in good faith — someone who understands the movement and its founder.

“Between what did happen and what I proposed, one commonality is that Alex Oliva was one of the people I thought might manage to lead the FSF in good faith — someone who understands the movement and its founder.”As he is a former employee of IBM, I had mixed feelings about that — but I still think he is probably closer to the founder than anybody else who might take over, and if my plan had been implemented it would have most likely led to Oliva being chosen as the new president.

I wanted someone who was not afraid to speak out (and Oliva has indeed spoken out about the coup) because speaking out is something Free software must do, and if the president can’t do that, then the organisation is impotent. Instead of being made president, however, the FSF chose to make Oliva one of TWO VPs — right, just like Michael and Jim in The Office. If you need a sign to let you know just how fake the “new” FSF is, this wasn’t the one that convinced me though it ought to be enough.

“The Open Source Initiative has long worked to co-opt Free Software, to the point where their own co-founder resigned in protest of them doing so.”Plans to remove rms aren’t a new thing — rms has long stood in the way of corporate hegemony. The Open Source Initiative has long worked to co-opt Free Software, to the point where their own co-founder resigned in protest of them doing so.

After the coup, OSI co-founder Bruce Perens mentioned that OSI had its own plan many years ago to depose rms, but that he never supported it. I would note the similarities between the old plan (because looking back, parts of it were clearly deployed) and the more recent one.

“After the coup, OSI co-founder Bruce Perens mentioned that OSI had its own plan many years ago to depose rms, but that he never supported it.”All versions of this plan involve creating new rules and stressing new priorities for Free software that just happen to cut rms and his supporters out of the picture. To give a quick breakdown of events over the past couple years, this theme is easy to illustrate:

December 2018

A petition was created during or after LibrePlanet 2018 (an FSF-hosted and FSF-organised event) calling for rms to be held to LibrePlanet’s safe space rules.

No matter what the rules are called, conflating a lack of “safety” with whether the host organisation’s own president is allowed to override the emcee to make a comment or ask the speaker a question is exactly the sort of inflexible, zero-tolerance stupidity that makes reasonable people hate these sorts of rules.

This is supposed to be a meeting of “hackers” — people who change the world in clever ways. LibrePlanet does this group of revolutionary thinkers no justice. If they simply dealt with real problems and serious disruptions when they arose, nobody would think much of it. Instead, they want a set of rules that guarantees absurd overreactions and puts those over handling disruption in a way that is sane, constructive or reasonable.

Since this happened a year before the rest of the events, it would be reasonable to treat it as separate from the coup. However, the themes in common (a year is also not really very long as far as political strategies are concerned) are more than enough cause to include this — without it, some context is missed.

September 2019

The coup swings into gear, with reactions to comments rms made on the MIT CSAIL mailing list. Since then he has been DEFENDED by prominent feminists, activists and even the former (and female) head of the ACLU, but this has not stopped people from implying that rms is a misogynist and defender of pedophiles, including Jeffrey Epstein (he never did defend Epstein, quite the contrary).

One of the pieces of “evidence” circulated online against rms was a photo of his MIT office door, where someone else had scribbled a joke about women, which rms removed.

The executive director of GNOME (who had also signed the LibrePlanet petition) used the GNOME blog to attack rms in light of these events. The Software Freedom Conservancy issued a statement calling for his resignation.

Stallman “voluntarily” resigns on Sept 16, less than a week after people called for him to. Based on what I’ve been told, I believe the information he was given leading to him stepping down was not given in good faith. RMS DID NOT NEED TO RESIGN either when or how he did — he was scammed out of his position, and with that everyone supporting the FSF was scammed.

Late 2019, duration unknown

The FSF mailing list was censored to remove or even prevent statements that supported rms after his resignation.

September 2019

Stallman.org is defaced to make it look like rms has resigned from the GNU project.

October 2019

Developers from Guix and the GNU Project (also an FSF staff member and a former FSF staff member) call for rms to resign as head of the GNU Project. I find their opportunism and timing disgusting and I note the number of corporate employees and sympathisers with monopolistic companies (including IBM, Microsoft and Google) who were involved with this.

Late 2019 and/or early 2020, Ongoing

The GNU wiki hosts a call for a “social contract” for the GNU Project, not unlike the safe space rules that led to the LibrePlanet petition, with a list of supporters / endorsements that overlaps mostly with the list of people on the Guix petition.

This coup did not start in response to events in September, it used every opportunity it had to latch onto the smallest and most insignificant drama as justification (the questions and comments rms made at LibrePlanet were not controversial, apart than stating his right as FSF president to make them, rather than letting the emcee dictate to him) and even when the FSF had already lost rms from his position as well as the board, the traitors demanded to strip him as well as supporters of even more.

The FSF is not a functional organisation, it is being sabotaged from the outside and within, and the people responsible have not ceased to undermine the founder as well as the community.

“The FSF is not a functional organisation, it is being sabotaged from the outside and within, and the people responsible have not ceased to undermine the founder as well as the community.”What’s more is that (as Techrights has argued in great detail over the past 10-11 months since the resignation) a lot of what happened was based on distortions and lies that have not been rectified. RMS was not merely deposed, he was assassinated. Absolutely nothing has happened to resolve the corruption, apart from Oliva saying that it was in fact dishonest and a coup.

RMS says he is still the head of the GNU Project and to support the FSF, but the FSF is a corrupt organisation that lies to its members. Supporting it is not the solution in light of all we know.

Support Free software, not the FSF which dismantled itself in an attack on its own mission.

Support rms — not the traitors who assassinated him.

Support GNU — but know that some of the projects are run by traitors, who don’t care about your freedom.

If you are new to all this, perhaps you’re thinking: “Why would I support a movement that has elements as dysfunctional as this?”

That’s a perfectly reasonable question. If you feel that way, definitely DO NOT give any money (time is one thing — people will give time to their own television, I don’t think giving it to Free software is likely worse) to the FSF or even to Free software until you are more comfortable with doing so. I’m very selective about that myself.

The reason I would recommend you support Free software is that the alternative is worse, and Free software (as a movement) is still good. Yes, it has a few too many people working against it, but it has had that for years. The FSF (including rms himself) failed to protect us or itself from this coup — the narrative constantly (and either erroneously or dishonestly) is written as though this happened solely to rms.

“The best possible response is to rebuild Free software in a way that does justice to its core principles (particularly the Free Software Definition) both in rhetoric (as the FSF cloyingly soundbites these days) and in practice (as the FSF does not) as well as justice to its history, including the legacy of its founder.”It happened to the FSF, it happened to the new VP, it happened to the board, the GNU Project and all the people who have given time and money to these things. This was a great fraud and a terrible scam.

The best possible response is to rebuild Free software in a way that does justice to its core principles (particularly the Free Software Definition) both in rhetoric (as the FSF cloyingly soundbites these days) and in practice (as the FSF does not) as well as justice to its history, including the legacy of its founder.

No, I did not support the rms assassination. As it happened, the whole thing is a giant lie and a terrible injustice, and those responsible are traitors to Free software. Those who support them are either just as bad if they know better, or manipulated to under false pretenses and by outright lies.

The movement deserves far better than these scoundrels. If you trust the people that did this, they will (continue to) do the same to you.

As to what to do about those who are both within and against the movement, the previous chapter still holds — we need more people, more autonomy — and as Oliva called it one article of his, a “New Dawn” for this movement.

Free Software itself — founded by Richard Stallman — was a shock to all narcissist developers and monopolists. Now that they have taken control of the movement that affronted them, the best way forward is to rejuvenate both our defenses and the good work we can do — and to work (to reroute) around the projects that continue to sell us out to monopolies.

Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)

It Looks Like Red Hat’s (IBM) Fedora Project May be ‘Outsourced’ to Amazon’s Datacentres

Posted in Red Hat at 3:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Amazon datacentres in Ashburn
Amazon datacentres in Ashburn (source: Wikileaks)

Summary: In “seeking a more modern and cost effective location” for Fedora Infrastructure it seems to have been decided, privately, that Amazon (AWS) would be the new home of this project; but there’s sufficient obfuscation surrounding the matter and many people seem to be totally unaware

OVERNIGHT we’ve spent several hours researching this and we also asked some Fedora people, who don’t seem to know exactly what’s going on. Surely some people higher up the corporate chain have a better and clearer idea, but they’re not likely to speak about it because IBM pays their salary and there’s fear of further layoffs. A lot of the finer details will be available in IRC logs (frustratingly enough, almost all the coding/code hosting was outsourced to Microsoft), but the gist of it all is this: while examining about a dozen services of the Fedora Project we’ve occasionally stumbled upon Amazon addresses. And then there’s this:

dig copr.fedorainfracloud.org

; <<>> DiG 9.11.5-P4-5.1+deb10u1-Debian <<>> copr.fedorainfracloud.org
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 34423
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;copr.fedorainfracloud.org.     IN      A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
copr.fedorainfracloud.org. 300  IN      CNAME   copr-fe.aws.fedoraproject.org.
copr-fe.aws.fedoraproject.org. 939 IN   A       3.81.0.123

This probably merits a little bit of context. A few hours ago Fedora Infrastructure had another very major OpenShift failure (not the first such incident over the past few days). Well, it wasn’t an issue until lately…

This so-called ‘cloud computing’ software is Red Hat’s brand (with GUIs and everything) of something that’s otherwise widely available as Free software but harder to use.

“Fedora Infrastructure Status: Major service disruption,” said the notice, reading out the extent of the impact: “New status major: issues with openshift cluster for services: Ipsilon, Badges, Blockerbugs, Package Updates Manager, Fedora Infrastructure Cloud, COPR Build System, Documentation website, Fedora elections, Account System, Fedora Messaging Bus, Fedora Calendar, Fedora pastebin service, The Koji Buildsystem, Koschei Continuous Integration, Kerberos, Mailing Lists, Module Build Service, Mirror List, Mirror Manager, Fedora Packages App, Pagure, Fedora People, Package maintainers git repositories, Fedora Container Registry, ABRT Server, Fedora websites, Fedora Wiki, Zodbot IRC bot”

“…while examining about a dozen services of the Fedora Project we’ve occasionally stumbled upon Amazon addresses.”And later on it said “New status good: Everything seems to be working.”

“We are now operating from the new datacentre and are bringing back capacity as time allows. The known issues are documented here in our wiki,” it adds. If one goes to the corresponding status page for pertinent services (“Fedora Project Datacentre Move”) it is linking to this wiki page, which in turn says: “This is a page to track known issues after the Fedora Infrastructure Datacenter move in 2020 from phx2 to iad2 and rdu2.”

Those are not descriptive names, as there’s not even a domain name/suffix. We tried tracing back the IP addresses of these services to identity where at least some these services were being moved to. “I think it’s more Red Hat management pressure to rely on Github and Google,” Ryan said, but it seems to be related to neither. “You know,” Ryan continued, “the infrastructure self-hosting was VERY reliable for many years before that.” He mentioned “GMail, Google Drive, calendar stuff” as examples, citing the anonymous post that said about Jim Whitehurst: “He didn’t use our products (used a Mac, along with other members of the executive management team), allowed RH to dump open source solutions for our own business to move things to Google’s services (which is a huge message to our very clients of “we don’t value or trust open source, so why should you?”)”

“A few hours ago Fedora Infrastructure had another very major OpenShift failure (not the first such incident over the past few days).”The migration pages are edited mostly by Kevin Fenzi (IBM/Red Hat), who wrote about it less than a year ago in the devel-announce mailing list. No replies to it as of this date.

Is Copr on AWS now? Seems so. If the new DC of Fedora is Amazon-owned and Amazon-controlled, there may be something to conclude. Depending on one’s opinion regarding Amazon and AWS, which turns Free/libre things into proprietary.

This message from last year says the hosting of various services is moving to the city/area in VA where AWS has many datacentres that already route some Fedora traffic. While we don’t know for sure what’s going on, as we need to better understand what plans are made in the boardroom (behind closed doors), it seems likely there’s a move to Amazon.

Four years ago The Atlantic published “Where Are Amazon’s Data Centers?” and it took note of Ashburn and Sterling. About a year later Wikileaks revealed that both places have lots of datacentres in them, mostly Ashburn (shown above is our screenshot of these).

Going back to Kevin, less than a year ago he wrote: “Fedora Infrastructure currently has the majority of its hardware in a datacenter in Arizona, USA. Red Hat leases this space for use by a number of teams, including Fedora.”

“This message from last year says the hosting of various services is moving to the city/area in VA where AWS has many datacentres that already route some Fedora traffic.”We can confirm, based on lots of checks, that many services still link to that datacentre.

“However,” Kevin continued, “they’ve been seeking a more modern and cost effective location for some time and have decided on one: So, we will be migrating to a new datacenter located in Ashburn, Virginia in 2020.”

Oh, Ashburn. Where Amazon has a densely-distributed cluster of datacentres.

Is Red Hat moving to ‘the cloud’ and, if so, why not its own? Does IBM feel like it needs to outsource that to a competitor/partner?

The details on this are still not certain and I could not get anybody from Fedora (in IRC) to confirm or deny. Quite frankly, many of them may not be aware.

IRC Proceedings: Saturday, August 08, 2020

Posted in IRC Logs at 2:33 am by Needs Sunlight

GNOME Gedit

GNOME Gedit

#techrights log

#boycottnovell log

GNOME Gedit

GNOME Gedit

#boycottnovell-social log

#techbytes log

Enter the IRC channels now

« Previous Page « Previous Page Next entries »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts