Re: Red Hat
Debian is subject to the vice-like grip of Red Hat due to simple economics. If Red Hat - either directly through projects it outright controls, or indirectly, through projects where it merely "exerts influence" - raises the cost of forking (or simply not using) a given open source project then Debian's options become limited.
Debian can make its choices and devote its own resources how it wishes, but it only has so many resources. Forking critical projects takes money, and lots of it. It takes developer time and those developers have to pay their bills, eat and otherwise live lives.
Linux isn't some hobbyist project that a few hundred developers can simply make go in their spare time. An upstream Linux distribution like Debian is a massive investment, even when it merely repackaging code from most projects instead of actually maintaining forks.
A distribution is an operating system, and any asshole who tries to say things like "if the community cared they'd just do the work to make X happen" is being purposefully deceptive. That's not how it actually works. Hasn't been for 15 years or so.
One great example is systemd. Debian simply didn't have the resources to form Gnome (and other projects) which rely on it. This has had numerous consequences, which I won't go into here, but is a direct result of Red Hat's control of the ecosystem.
Now, Red Hat will wave its hands around and exclaim that only half the systemd devs are from Red Hat, but that's not really relevant. Systemd has by now become hugely important to modern Linux (again, thanks to pressure from Red Hat), and other organizations have had to devote developer time simply out of self defense.
Open source is also all about relationships. Who is friends with whom makes all the difference. It can and does drive architectural decisions, and carries far more weight than doing what the community actually wants or even what rational analysis says is best.
Red Hat is everywhere. Financially, physically, socially. It funds so many developers for so many projects, sends those developers to conferences and otherwise ensures that its people have the backing and tools necessary not just to contribute to various projects, but to lead them.
Is it an evil, sinister plot? That depends entire on how you look at it. Each choice, taken in isolation, is probably reasonable and innocent. But at the higher levels the choice to make resources available - from hiring staff to okaying project expenditure to conference support - is strategic. It isn't about hugging the community and helping the community get what it wants. It is about using largess to ensure the community has no choice but to do what Red Hat wants.
Which is exactly what a corporation is supposed to do.
So yes, Red Hat has a vice-like grip. Even over Debian. Compared to Red Hat Debian is a gnat to an elephant. It can only forge its own path when and where it can afford to do so. And its options to differentiate are decreasing.
Which, oddly enough, is one of the actual stated goals of the systemd devs: reducing the diversity of the Linux ecosystem so that "needless differentiation" is eliminated. Imagine that.
I use systemd as an example because it is fairly easy to understand why may want it gone. Systemd isn't the only example. Udev was another (until it become part of systemd). Many distros wanted nothing at all to do with udev.
There's an argument to be made that systemd isn't part of Red Hat's evil plans to take over the world, but is instead part of Lennart Pottering's evil plans to take over the world. Tomato, tomato. Pottering may own the systemd copyright, but Red Hat not only pays his salary, they chose to adopt it, defend it (and Pottering) and throw resources at evangelizing its use.
The difference between Microsoft and Red Hat is the difference between top down and bottom up. In the Microsoft approach decisions about direction are made at the top and marching orders are given.
The Red Hat approach is to fund a bunch of smart people and give them relative (but limited) freedom to run amok in order to see what they come up with. Those projects and ideas that benefit the company strategically receive funding and investment and in this manner corporate requirements for consolidation, control and a general direction are served.
Microsoft commands an army. Red Hat herds cats. But what open source faithful refuse to acknowledge is that Red Hat also decides which cats live and which cats die. If the cats move in a direction beneficial to Red Hat, they live. But if they start to colour outside the lines, Red Hat turns off the oxygen and a new cat takes over.
No other organization, no other distribution, no collection of individuals - not even the kernel team - have that level of control over the Linux ecosystem. Red Hat owns Linux. How they went about doing so is Machiavellian, terrifying...and absolutely brilliant.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
