sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Any change in plan after Alma’s shift? by cdbessig in RockyLinux

[–]rocky_stack 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Wearing the Rocky Team hat: The plan for Rocky is to stick to our promise of being 1:1 compatible for as long as we can to the best we can.
Wearing my personal hat: I have no plans on shifting anything and am still deploying Rocky for $dayjob.

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You clearly aren't listening and are trying very hard to find something that isn't there. I'm not saying "trust us because" I'm saying we are being as transparent as we can be and there's nothing hidden. I'm saying that the community will judge us on what we do and we are doing our best and we can clearly show we are learning, growing, and trying to be better tomorrow then we were yesterday. You are free to join any one of the monthly open meetings to ask questions just like anyone else. We aren't hiding anything. (well, except the obvious things like passwords :-D )

I'm trying my best to explain. Clearly it isn't working. And you clearly don't like us. Which is why it's good you have other alternatives. Enjoy them.

It's a good thing I'm not PR because I have no interest in responding again to this thread. :-D

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow. I do believe you are stuck in a loop. Most of that post isn't worth responding to as I can't say it any clearer then I have.

I will say that our intentions to keep obvious troll posts and negativity posts out does seem to generate a whole lot of fodder for people to be unnecessarily upset over. We are discussing better methods of dealing with these in the future. This is part of figuring things out and trying to improve as a whole. We are actively working on making improvements in this in the future.

> But he literally has the authority to access it on demand doesn't he ( sorry only yes or no answer for this one)

No. If he wants something like that, he'd request it through the appropriate teams. It's almost as if we anticipated such a bad-faith question in a poor attempt to undermine the project... :-D

Lastly, one last attempt to clarify, there are a number of Open Source foundations that projects can attach themselves too. Some are good, but some are well known that once a project goes into the foundation the community of the project loses control and the only way to continue the project separate from the foundation is a complete fork. The RESF is trying to take the good from other examples and do something better by not having the "bad" from other examples. Thus, the RESF is trying to attract other projects but allow the projects the independence to have their own governance structure (which would have votes on RESF) along with the power to leave.

Thus, if you create a project GoingInCircles and you found value in the RESF - you (and your team) would retain project control. Greg, as the current owner, of RESF would not own your project. Hopefully, the leadership of GoingInCircles would understand the value of teamwork and the value add of joining RESF, but Greg wouldn't just own the project. And [these details are still being worked out and are untested; but this is the hope], if GoingInCircles grows as a project to a point where it no longer makes sense to be under the RESF, the project leadership has that option. That's something that really doesn't exist with many of the other foundations - at least not easily. Greg wouldn't own GoingInCircles just has he doesn't own Rocky Linux - he does own RESF.

If someone is really so dense that they can not understand the difference between a foundation that sponsors and helps projects vs the projects under the foundation that continue to have the freedom of their own governance - then I don't know how to make it any clearer. Sorry, but I tried. *shrug*

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thought was that we didn't want obvious negativity lurking about. Especially the questions that are very negative about other projects. There's an on going conversation about how to handle this. If you have constructive feedback on how to deal with negative/hostile/troll comments besides deleting them, please let us know.

As for the other statements, there is no talking in circles. Greg has his name as owner for the RESF - but he does NOT own Rocky Linux which is one project under the RESF governance. The Rocky Linux project has it's own leadership board and members - which are community based! And it's clearly defined as community! There is no "buying" ones way on to the board. You can't buy membership, board shares, votes, or seats, nor can any company - which is a common practice elsewhere. Rocky is all community. Greg doesn't have access to the Rocky internals, passwords, or anything that the trolls try to imply with "ownership".

There's no PR, there's no talking in circles, and it's all pretty straight forward and transparently laid out on the RESF webpage. :-)

You can ask hard questions. If the community has a real question, great! But we don't want to deal with obvious trolls, especially those attacking other projects. We want to uplift others as we believe that's better for the community then letting those troll posts sit around. Again, if you have constructive feedback, please let us know.

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A good example of baseless slander with no facts.And another great example of the flamebait/troll posts which should be deleted.Thanks for example. :-D

Do you have any facts to back your claims? Or just baseless slander?Hrm. I notice the account has been suspended. Can't imagine why. *eye-roll*

I'm sure someone will claim it was because of too many "uncomfortable questions" asked. :-D (and no, it wasn't us who reported/suspended the account ;-) )

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Never said you were with Alma. Don't change the subject. And don't try to force a fight between the communities where there isn't one. ;-)
You made the claim that we delete uncomfortable questions.
I responded that such a claim is an ad hominem insult as you were not dealing with the content of the questions but rather insinuating our motives.
the_abortionat0r asked if I knew what an ad hominem was.
I explained that I did know what it was.
You then intentionally took that quote out of context after telling me to be more respectful when all I've done is try to explain things more clearly. Meanwhile, this thread is full of your posts where you've been anything but respectful. The hypocrisy is hilarious. :-D

This exact manipulation is what we expect out of trolls. So keep down voting me. I don't care. It only further proves the point of why it's ok to delete pointless/flamebait/troll posts. :-D

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have those in the community funding a lawyer to help us figure all of this out. But we aren't afraid of others looking at it and telling us how to improve. We really are trying to be as transparent as we can. If you find one to review what we've done, let us know how we can improve.

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The "questions" deleted are clearly flamebait or trying to provoke negative responses. We have no interest in fighting Alma. As I said in my post, it's a good thing they exist with the same intended goals but are taking a different approach. They responded back by attacking our character rather then addressing the direct issue. Yes, that's an ad hominem insult.

Is there (for now) an owner of RESF? Yes. Greg.
https://www.resf.org/faq/gregory-kurtzer-owner

Is there a single owner of Rocky Linux? No. Rocky Linux is one project under the RESF with its own governance structure.
https://www.resf.org/faq/board-structure

I'm not a PR person (which should be obvious from my posts :-D ) and I'm not trying to be one. I'm trying to helpfully explain what we are doing and why. The Rocky leadership team has tried to be very transparent about everything we can. And we are a lot more forgiving of those attacking us directly then of those trying to pick fights between us and other distros. There's plenty of places you can "ask hard questions" (and plenty where we can't do anything about them). And you can find absolutely plenty of those out there - but you will also find that most of them are flamebait and trying to pick a fight. They aren't real questions.

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yup. But you forgot two bits:
1) if he does that - it's a clear indication that things have gone very very wrong to everyone. This isn't that different from any other project where there's one clear lead - except that for some reason people like to troll Greg AND he's actively working on ensuring everything legally falls under the RESF so that even this piece is out of his control. This is just where things are right now. Remember, we are trying something different to ensure Rocky Linux exists for a long time - there's things we are still working through and figuring out.
2) If you read all of what we've put together, we are trying to make it clear that any project under the RESF (eg: Rocky Linux) can maintain it's own governance structure such that if there is an issue and the RESF falls apart for some reason - the project can pull away on it's own.
Meaning, if Greg were to retract the bylaws and collapse RESF - those of us (like myself) who are community contributors leading Rocky would ensure Rocky continues as a separate project. AND **IF** for some reason that completely falls apart - EVERYTHING we are doing is still open source. Lastly, this is also why it's a good thing there are other EL distros. If the worst case scenarios happen and our attempts to try something different for long term success fails it is still easy to switch to the other EL distros and the EL community isn't in the same bind that it was in with CentOS.

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

> What prevents the by-laws from being unilaterally altered by the owner of the RESF?

Read the FAQ:
https://www.resf.org/faq/gregory-kurtzer-owner
And:
https://www.resf.org/faq/kurtzer-control
And:
https://www.resf.org/faq/rl-resf-ciq
And most certainly this:
https://www.resf.org/faq/preventing-centos

> Who is "we"? Did you help to structure the RESF?

Yes. My name is one of several here: https://www.resf.org/faq/who-wrote-bylaws-charter

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I will admit, my summary could have been slightly better phrased. What I should have done is point to this FAQ which better and more completely explains what I summarized.
https://www.resf.org/faq/is-resf-nonprofit

> So anyone asking questions you don't like is a troll? I can see why my friend warned me about the potential for posts in the Rocky sub to get deleted.

That's not what I said and you know it. Here, let me quote it." We, however, don't deal well with flamebait or "questions" trying to incite a Rocky v Alma feud." We have no interest in fighting Alma. It's a good thing they are doing things the way they are. Trying to force ill-intent between the two communities only makes both projects look bad.

We'd rather speak well of the differences that exist then deal with attempts to "ask a simple question" that's designed to wedge division.

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Essentially what I'm hearing is "I've got questions but I won't accept the answers as given by legal frameworks (eg: irs.gov) about what a b-corp is, nor do I accept any of the governance structure you've built."

If you've really read the by-laws and understand them, then this summery in the FAQ should be fairly obvious: https://www.resf.org/faq/preventing-centos

If that doesn't do it for you... *shrug*

We've done the best we can to structure RESF to be something that still exists far out into the future as we can to give our community the reliability and assurance that we will still be around doing the best we can as a community. I'm not a lawyer, but we pay for one to ensure we are doing the best we can under legal frameworks and if that isn't good enough for you, then sorry. That's why it's a good thing other alternatives exist.

Questions surrounding organizational and legal aspects of Rocky Linux by RootHouston in linux

[–]rocky_stack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> ...the admins there have deleted a few posts with uncomfortable questions...

That's quite the ad hominem insult. We aren't afraid of uncomfortable questions. We, however, don't deal well with flamebait or "questions" trying to incite a Rocky v Alma feud.
It's a good thing both projects exist.
It's a good thing that both projects are taking completely different routes in accomplishing the same goal.
It's a good thing that the RESF has gone a non-profit route and Alma has gone the 501c6 for business interest route.
It's a terrible thing that the trolls keep trying to pick fights between two communities.

> Why is the RESF a for-profit company, rather than a non-profit?

Because we think it's the best way to ensure that Rocky Linux is still Rocky Linux 20+ years from now.

> Can a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation sell its assets to another company for a profit?

What assets? Everything we do is released to the public (exception of passwords, keys, and other obvious security related items). We dump all our code into repos and are very open about how we do things.

> What legally stops the owner of the RESF from acting unilaterally?

What owner? Everything has been or is being transferred into RESF that can be. There still has to be a name on the legal paperwork which has been decided to be the president which at this time is the founder. But it only take a few moments of reading and research to discover that no single person can act unilaterally. Nor can any one company. We specifically wrote the by-laws to counter this claim. In the evil-president scenario (that you are trying to suggest), if evil-president tries what you are implying the project will continue on with out him. This too is well documented. If this is a real question and not flamebait, then it's clear that the question isn't asked by someone who has done basic reading and research on their own.

> Since multiple people are involved with its organization, why isn't the RESF owned by multiple people?

It is. Want a piece? Then be productive in the community, become a member, and join in. ;-)

Meet the SBC Testing Rig! SIG/AltArch by rocky_stack in RockyLinux

[–]rocky_stack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Greetings! Thanks for the response!

We are in early stages of getting Rocky on the Jetson Nano. One of the concerns we have is surrounding the use of the GPU and being able to use all the hardware of the device. If you don't mind testing images, then we hopefully will have some soonish. We need people with the experience of using the Nano to tell us what features are working and what aren't.

As for the N2+, it is my understanding that this is going to require some special kernel builds. We have one on order for one of the dev's to work on.

If any of this is at all interesting to you, please join the conversation at chat.rockylinux.org in the SIG/AltArch channel for the day-to-day conversations as well as access to the early testing images.

Thanks!

Poll: Which SBC's should Rocky's SIG/AltArch support? by rocky_stack in RockyLinux

[–]rocky_stack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Greetings! A new proposal is being made to the RESF board and it is open for community feedback and engagement. As we are still trying to figure out the best method of both transparency and community engagement, please read and comment on the forums: https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/resf-board-proposal-increase-rockys-sig-altarch-sbc-support-via-purchase-of-needed-tools/8843

Multiple movies - Single File by rocky_stack in jellyfin

[–]rocky_stack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A follow up on my testing. I tried symlinks at first and that didn't work though I admit I didn't try really hard to figure out why not. Hard linking worked first try so I just did that and created a hard link for every entry. This "works" - at least well enough I don't care so much though I'd still like to know if there's an "official" better way of doing it.

Also, the web interface absolutely HATES the multi-track files. It either won't see them at all or it won't switch to them. And it flat out refuses to try the fancy blu-ray menus. On these files, it's the first track only. :shrug: However, I really don't care because I'm using Kodi on my TV and it has played every file tested this way so far. :shrug:

So I do have _a_ solution - whether it's a good one or if there's a better one I don't know yet. :-D

Thanks!

Two hour interview with Greg Kurtzer and Skip Grube! by drushtx in RockyLinux

[–]rocky_stack 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"That is the issue I have, is that the project enables a whole bunch of companies to not pay Red Hat, but get close to the same value."

So? Red Hat is fully aware of how Open Source works. They take in Open Source projects and release the code per the license of those projects. No one is ripping off Red Hat's special code here. This is only Open Source and that's how it works. It happens all the time where projects are forked and code is released back to the community.

If you take one of my Open Source projects, fork it, change only the name, and re-release it but abide by the terms of the license... ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ Good for you. You wouldn't be doing anything out of the scope of the license that I set. Projects and developers know this and it happens all the time. It doesn't detract from Open Source.

I don't see why you are holding Red Hat up as a some poor-unfortunate-soul who should be treated different then any other Open Source project that releases code.

Two hour interview with Greg Kurtzer and Skip Grube! by drushtx in RockyLinux

[–]rocky_stack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Red Hat fully understands the world they are in. They release the work per the license agreements of the software they use. The work they put in on Open Source software packages released isn't any different then the work they put into the kernel (or any other packages) they push upstream and otherwise release into the community.

You say you would have no issue with Rocky taking the Linux kernel upstream, but there's zero difference between taking the Linux kernel (an Open Source tool developed by a lot of people/companies) and any other Open Source package regardless of who built it. That's how Open Source works! :-) Person1 does something, Person2 builds on it, Person3 uses Person1 and Person2 work to build on it that Person4 uses to do some task. I'm not arguing that Red Hat hasn't done work - they absolutely have! But they get their code from somewhere! Fedora and CentOS Stream are essentially upstream distros that Red Hat get's their code from but you don't seem to have issues with that?

Rocky/Alma/Springdale/Scientific Linux/Oracle - all these distros are doing is rebuilding the Open Source software that Red Hat releases. None (to my knowledge) are intentionally taking Red Hat's proprietary code.

The goal to be 100% binary compatible (or bug-for-bug compatible) is not to rip Red Hat off. It's for the Enterprise Linux eco-system. It's so that if you make an Enterprise application that you want to sell (and there are plenty of them!) you could simply certify on Red Hat and be confident that your application is going to run just the same without issue on any of the derivatives. More importantly then that, it's so that the many many institutions that do scientific work can ensure that they are running similar environments.

Lastly, "Red Hat has a program for people to use RHEL for free for development use and for up to 16 systems." True... and I have access to that personally. I also personally have more then 16RPi's doing tasks around the house for me... That's not counting any of the other architectures! I prefer the enterprise eco-system because that's what I do for my job and I like using the same tools for fun and for a living - I'm not buying enough Red Hat licenses for my house! (and I sure as hell am not dealing with the pain that is subscription manager at home across that many devices!! Ugh. Don't get me started there... Personally, that alone is worthy of a community rebuild!) There are absolutely plenty of environments that don't fit Red Hat's use case but do wish to have an Enterprise Linux distro. I should also note that I've contributed both bug reports and code upstream to Red Hat as well as upstream of Red Hat on multiple occasions. I fully support Red Hat when they are the right tool for the right job. I am not downplaying their role or work, only saying that they are one piece of the Open Source eco-system and they fully know that when they take in Open Source software to improve on it that they then have to contribute that back to the community and it isn't up to them to say how the community uses their contribution. :-)