How does Red Hat make money if Linux is free?
>>107708290being a consultant.
>>107708290free support
You have to pay them for help when their shit OS breaks. Same way MS makes a lot of their money
Because it makes its money by taking free open-source code and turning it into a no-bullsjit package for big companies through a subscription model. Since businesses can't afford for their systems to crash or be victims of typical FOSS bullshit they aren't paying for the software itself, but for the 24/7 expert support, constant security updates, and the peace of mind that comes with a system that’s been thoroughly tested, which isn't possible when all your software is handled by trannies involved with politics, dev drama and other nonsense.
>>107708290You have to pay for RHEL, sure you can just use red hat 1:1 clones, but the support on enterprise solutions is unmatched. You can call them 24hrs a day. RHEL usage is 90% for the fortune 500 companies.>linux won
>>107708290Would you trust all of your company's software on the hands of a bunch of NEET devs or on the hands of normal people who are paid and treats it like a job and not a passion project?
>>107708328This is a mildly bait-y way to say it but it's basically this. Red Hat's position is basically repackage FOSS software for enterprise use and then provide support for said software. It's cheaper for them, because they can adapt FOSS projects for their RHEL distro, while also being cheaper for the client. We, the bottomfeeders, benefit off of all of this because MOST of Red Hat's shit gets pushed down(up?)stream to the wider Linux consumer market.
>>107708290Red Hat is the reason Linux became a huge thing in the enterprise space. To answer shortly: They sell stable environments so companies focus on whatever they're hosting instead of installing, configuring and maintaining it.They offer subscriptions. Even though RHEL source code was freely available, you can install RHEL but may not obtain updates unless you add a third party repo, flatpaks, etc.Red Hat offers more products, meant for administration, container orchestration, virtualization and other stuff, most of it based on open source projects (they funded or contributed to). They've been very insistent on atomic images (bootc), LLMs (instructlab, granite and lightspeed) and quantum (post-quantum encryption thanks to IBM).They fund and contribute to a lot of open source projects. And usually let Fedora be the testing grounds of whatever open source and US law compliant project is projected to become the next big thing, once Fedora has an stable environment for such solution, that Fedora version is taken and used to make a new CentOS Stream image, that image will be worked on to make the next RHEL release.Fedora > CentOS Stream > RHELBut once RHEL is launched, the packages will stay in the same version to avoid environment changes, what Red Hat does is to follow updates (specially security ones) and make backports, releasing them as a new subversion of the package, Like openssh-6.8-1048 or whatever, instead of releasing openssh-6.10.2, because that would mess things up. Same goes for the kernel. Then they do it for 10 years before finally dropping it.This provides well tested software, but yes, Red Hat profits a ton more of what contributes back (even if it is a lot of money and code). Canonical has a similar relationship with Debian, as SUSE with openSUSE. Valve is also the Red Hat of gaming, funding and making the whole Linux ecosystem dependant while having a "fair" profit. They're the same, does not matter if they look good
>>10770832824/7 expert on what? Installing packages? Lmao
>>107708486>>107708290beyond RHEL every other product Red Hat makes is garbage, horrible user interface, bugs, poorly designed. Red Hat is actually a bottom tier company in the Linux ecosystem, the good programmers graduate and go to Facebook, Amazon, or Google.
>>107708328>which isn't possible when all your software is handled by trannies involved with politics, dev drama and other nonsenseBut that’s exactly what Red Hat is
But Fedora43 is supposed to be good....
>>107708883fedora is good because it's not completely under Red Hat control, there is still some (albeit not 100%) community control.That's why fedora uses btrfs and redhat is still keeping XFS on life support in RHEL.
>>107708817>Red Hat is shit unlike the big data giants who wants me to host everything on their servers.They're not 1:1 competitors, Red Hat services are mostly about having total infra management, with migrations to AWS, Azure, Google, etc, because the cloud alternatives clearly are not at the same scale. You're oversimplifying things in a totally retarded way.
>>107708916I'm saying Red Hat only has low-mid tier software engineers, and any good software engineer knows they can get a lot more money going to FAANG or a unicorn. The big 3 cloud providers have their own modifications and custom distro for Linux, use their own internal infrastructure tools. The cream of the crop of RedHat employees get picked up by FAANG and what's left are mediocre developers. Have you ever used a RedHat product outside of RHEL? Ansible or Satellite? They both are horribly designed and full of bugs.
>>107708883Wasn't 43 buggy as shit before they started fixing that?
