Are they a cancer to Linux?

skibidi dob dee dee

Ah

Yes a cancer they are

no

>>105803349 (OP)
Yes

I will never forgive them for removing the dino fight from their logo.
Never.

Red Hat/IBM has contributed to and defended Linux for literally decades now. Canonical Is the real pariah that just charges for an rebranded unstable version of Debian.

Not Red Hat specifically, but a lot of slimy people that tend to gravitate towards GNOME.

Time and time again, I stumble upon some issue tracker where a KDE guy is the voice of reason in a sea of bickering. There's a good chance that the adversary is associated with GNOME, which does overlap with Red Hat employment.

>>105804668
There's something about ubuntu and gnome that seems to attract grifters and climibers.

>>105803349 (OP)
No, more like a lingering AIDS with monkeypox and aggressive herpes

>>105803349 (OP)
>literally sponsors kernel development
>somehow still cancer

>>105803349 (OP)
They saved linux numerous times. Both server and desktop.

>>105803349 (OP)
More like a symbiotic parasite.

>>105803349 (OP)
Red Hat haters are hardly ever informed or justified. Unless they're Richard Stallman or Red Hat competition, you have no reason to specifically hate them so much, because you would have to hate EVERYONE funding the Linux Foundation (and Linus Torvalds himself).
It's pretty much ignorant people.

>>105804460
Yes i remember the SCO vs Linux unix intellectual rights infringement case and i remember IBM defending linux, but do you think they did it just out of kindness? Kek.
Also the phrase "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" is always true, remember when google motto was "don't do evil"?

Maybe the real cancer is us, the Linux community.

Linux is mature enough for any of us to just pick a distro and use it.

And yet, we bicker and fight amongst ourselves over a free and open source tool with enough options for any sort of user.

>>105806081
That's because most distros have pros and cons that (you) and you alone can decide, but that decision also depends on what others use. There's no way to have a "community" without having interaction, even if its not peaceful. Also Arch sucks to daily drive

>>105806054
Stealing movie lines to make your point. We’ve found the cancer, it’s you.

Yes, they are a for profit company. However, they’ve done more for open source than most. Which for profit org do you think is better? Oracle? Canonical? Microsoft? SUSE? Apple? Hell, which non-profit has done more? Probably Apache. However there aren’t a lot of orgs that have.

The question was if Red Hay was a cancer to Linux. The answer is no.

>>105806135
Laying it a bit to thick there, it's just a line that sums up the underlying issue: corporate interest is (understandingly) profit, be it long or short term, be it incidentally making good or bad (for others) in the process. IBM and RedHat did "good" to linux because they capitalized on it to make it grow and now they're doing "bad" to linux because they're trying to stranglehold it in their submission to further capitalize on it. Does this cancel the "good" they did in the past for linux? Obviously no but it assolves them for the bad they are doing to linux? Obviously no as well.
Since i'm generous here's another apt line you can use to character assassinate me again faggot: kore wa kore, sore wa sore.

>>105803349 (OP)
They are a mixed bag.

>>105804460
>Red Hat/IBM has contributed to and defended
Same guys who claim they wont hire white straight men anymore and enforce hostile technologies on clueless users. They probably spend more money on shill campaigns than on Linux in general. Just like Linux Foundation 3% on Linux kernel. Amazing defense there fren.

>>105805999
>because you would have to hate EVERYONE funding the Linux Foundation (and Linus Torvalds himself).
I dont see a problem with that at all.

>>105803349 (OP)
>owned by amerimutt conglomerate
yes

>>105806081
>the Linux community
Red Hat's favorite doublespeak phrase.