"This is anti-community behavior. As much as I dislike Oracle, making changes to intentionally harm them is definitely not pro-community."
Nobody is arguing that it wasn't. The argument presented in the article is that maybe this anti-community behavior was justifiable in the face of Oracle showing almost no willingness to work with the community. That point is certainly debatable, but I don't know where you see the claim that it wasn't anti-community.
"This falls back to the whole "is Linux about choice" meme, which according to RedHat is false. The only choice in our community these days is RedHat's."
If you're referring to the seminal rant at islinuxaboutchoice.com, then that's a gross misrepresentation of the argument presented. The argument there (which is a personal view of someone that happens to work for Red Hat) is that a Linux distributor (in this case, Fedora) is under absolutely no obligation to provide multiple interchangeable implementations of software that solve the same problem so that the user can choose his or her preferred implementation. In that context, Red Hat may choose to support one particular implementation of a sound server or init system in their product, and that's their prerogative. If you, the user, disagree with the software choices that Red Hat supports, then you can either put in the work to implement your preferred solution, or you can choose to use another distribution that is more aligned with your preferences.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Importance of community
Date: 2014-02-24 06:28 pm (UTC)Nobody is arguing that it wasn't. The argument presented in the article is that maybe this anti-community behavior was justifiable in the face of Oracle showing almost no willingness to work with the community. That point is certainly debatable, but I don't know where you see the claim that it wasn't anti-community.
"This falls back to the whole "is Linux about choice" meme, which according to RedHat is false. The only choice in our community these days is RedHat's."
If you're referring to the seminal rant at islinuxaboutchoice.com, then that's a gross misrepresentation of the argument presented. The argument there (which is a personal view of someone that happens to work for Red Hat) is that a Linux distributor (in this case, Fedora) is under absolutely no obligation to provide multiple interchangeable implementations of software that solve the same problem so that the user can choose his or her preferred implementation. In that context, Red Hat may choose to support one particular implementation of a sound server or init system in their product, and that's their prerogative. If you, the user, disagree with the software choices that Red Hat supports, then you can either put in the work to implement your preferred solution, or you can choose to use another distribution that is more aligned with your preferences.