29c28d5246b753a89f1de4eb04f6e357
A COUPLE of weeks ago we revisited the sad situation of Fedora Project being a prisoner of Microsoft, not just IBM [1, 2] (the context or the focus being "master" branch*). It harms the credibility of the project, which already lost a lot of the volunteers (the actual community, not IBM staff "100% of the time"). What IBM did to CentOS a year ago** was an eye-opener; why would it treat Fedora any better than CentOS?
"IBM announced its takeover of Red Hat the same year Microsoft announced its takeover of GitHub."I've used Fedora many times before. I used the first and second releases and then I occasionally used it again over the years. Long term too, for years at a time... so I truly care about how IBM assassinates the community, including long timers whose name I've known for over a decade. What is IBM hoping to accomplish?
IBM announced its takeover of Red Hat the same year Microsoft announced its takeover of GitHub. Why hasn't IBM helped distance Fedora from GitHub? We wrote about the subject many times before and since then many alternatives to GitHub have either emerged or evolved to the point of feature parity. Even over Gemini Protocol we have more and more options (Git over Gemini clients instead of Web browsers).
"It's hard to tell why Miller is so pessimistic."IBM's Miller likes to pretend that there's nothing they can do, but this new in-depth article from LWN says "Catanzaro was unconvinced by Miller's assertion that Fedora could not run its own open-source GitLab instance."
What baloney! To quote: "If GNOME and KDE and freedesktop.org and Debian and Purism can all do it, I'm pretty sure Fedora can too."
Of course it can. But maybe there's a lack of will because of back room deals of Microsoft and IBM? Just like in the days of ODF vs OOXML wars? It's hard to tell why Miller is so pessimistic. Heck, we've crafted our very own 'CMS' for Git @ Techrights and we're just a couple of people. Surely IBM has far more resources (money and people) than us... ⬆
______
* For Git, the word "master" has long been a convenient convention that made branch names predictable. Now that IBM looks to eradicate it some choose "dev" and "devel" instead (inconsistent), which is also confusing because "dev" typically means "test" in conjunction with "live". So they're harmed clarify, increased confusion, and raised the access barrier, making adoption of Git even harder and some literature obsolete (bad for poor people who can only afford old books and bad for the environment).
** Even IBM seemed to regret what it had foolishly done, seeing it obky led to more clones of RHEL. Not to mention growing disdain and distrust when it comes to IBM.
A COUPLE of weeks ago we revisited the Fedora Project and it being held prisoner by Microsoft in addition to IBM/Red Hat. [1, 2] Focusing on non-issues such as the "problematic" naming of the “master” branch further compromises the credibility of an already compromised project, one that has already lost a lot of real community volunteers (not re-assigned IBM staff “100% of the time”). IBM's decimation of the CentOS project a year ago** is proving a harbinger of its current neglect and mismanagement of Fedora.
I’m a recurring Fedora user, having deployed the initial and second releases full-time with occasional usage over the years for long periods of time. It pains me how IBM alienates the community, including long timers whose names I’ve known for over a decade. What productive good is IBM hoping to accomplish?
IBM announced its takeover of Red Hat the same year Microsoft announced its own acquisition of GitHub. Since then IBM has not raised a figure to distance Fedora from GitHub and its now Microsoft-controlled infrastructure. This is especially glaring given the many feature-parity GitHub alternatives that have emerged from that time until now. Many Gemini-based options have even been developed, forgoing web browser-based environments in favour of Gemini clients.
IBM’s Miller presents the narrative that the GitHub lock-in is beyond IBM's control, but this is contradicted by a new in-depth article from LWN, which states that “Catanzaro was unconvinced by Miller’s assertion that Fedora could not run its own open-source GitLab instance”.
Catanzaro noted the obvious that “If GNOME and KDE and freedesktop.org and Debian and Purism can all do it, I’m pretty sure Fedora can too.”
Of course IBM has the resources and the ability to wean off the GitHub teet, but is held back by an apparent lack of will. Given the current incestuous state of Linux Foundation-linked companies, we can safely speculate that back room deals between Microsoft and IBM play a role, just like in the days of ODF vs OOXML wars and the many corrupted parties. Without that context it’s hard to understand why Miller would be so pessimistic. Heck, we’ve crafted our very own ‘CMS’ for Git at TechRights despite being a couple of people. Surely IBM is capable of far more with vast capital and employee resources… ⬆
______
* For Git the word “master” has long been a convenient convention that mad branch names predictable. Now that IBM looks to eradicate it, some have chosen “dev” and “devel” instead inconsistently. There is also further confusion of “dev” typically means “test” in contrast to a "production" state. IBM's antics here have harmed clarity, increased confusion, and raised the access barrier to Git adoption. Much documentation and other literature on the subject is becoming obsolete (detrimental for fiscally-constrained people who can only afford old books and bad for the environment).
** Even IBM seemed to regret what it had foolishly done given the plethora of RHEL forks. This is in addition to the disdain and distrust tarnishing IBM's reputation.