Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Red Hat Software Linux

Red Hat Gives Developers Free Access To Enterprise Linux For Business Use (nerds.xyz) 88

Posted by BeauHD from the would-you-look-at-that dept.
BrianFagioli shares a report from NERDS.xyz: Red Hat has introduced a new option that gives developers a fast lane to enterprise-grade Linux without needing to go through IT. The new release, called Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Business Developers, is now available for free. It offers direct, self-serve access to the same operating system used in production environments, specifically for business-focused development and testing.

The offering is part of the Red Hat Developer Program and is designed to reduce friction between development and operations teams. Developers can now build and test applications on the same platform that powers critical systems across physical servers, virtual machines, cloud deployments, and edge devices. [...] Each registered user can deploy up to 25 instances, whether virtual, physical, or cloud-based. The program includes signed and curated developer content such as programming languages, open source tools, and databases. Red Hat also includes Podman Desktop, its go-to container development tool, allowing users to work with containers that can closely match production environments.

While access is free, developers can choose to purchase support plans that tap into Red Hat's Linux expertise. This could appeal to developers working in business units or teams that want to build quickly without waiting on formal IT approval. This new option complements Red Hat's existing free Developer Subscription for Individuals and the Enterprise Developer Subscription for Teams, which is available through Red Hat reps or partners.

Red Hat Gives Developers Free Access To Enterprise Linux For Business Use More | Reply

Red Hat Gives Developers Free Access To Enterprise Linux For Business Use

Comments Filter:

  • Fuck 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )

    The offering is part of the Red Hat Developer Program and is designed to reduce friction between development and operations teams.

    Why would any developer want to help Red Hat after they denied distros access to their packages?

    If Red Hat doesn't want people to have access without paying then why should Red Hat get free ride?

    • Re: Fuck 'em. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Junta ( 36770 ) on Thursday July 10, 2025 @06:32AM (#65509298)

      This doesn't refer to open source developers, but business doing development/test.

      Red hat keeps on trying to work around the use cases they see as driving the clone distribution usage.

      In several meetings I've been in, they refuse to recognize that it's more about the logistics of compliance than the cost. Every other Linux distribution is super easy to deploy because there's no having to track how many entitlements you have or designate the context as development, test, business production, academic production, small private usage, etc.

      • This doesn't refer to open source developers, but business doing development/test.

        These can often be exactly the same thing. You are doing business development and you maybe have a proprietary module or maybe even just a small proprietary configuration. The rest of what you do is entirely open source and you either release yourself or contribute back to upstream. You actively want to avoid having more unneeded proprietary code because you don't profit from selling the code. In this case, CentOS was doing the heavy lifting of making your use of RedHat count as properly open source and all

    • Why would any developer want to help Red Hat after they denied distros access to their packages?

      That is nothing compared to the damage they did by making taking over CentOS with promises and then breaking those promises. The fact Rocky Linux [rockylinux.org] exists is good, but it's more in spite of RedHat than because of them. I've been responsible for a bunch of money going RedHat's way. That will never happen again. There are now plenty of distros that do fine. Nobody needs RedHat and nobody should be making new installs using it.

      • >"That is nothing compared to the damage they did by making taking over CentOS with promises and then breaking those promises."

        Completely agreed. And the moves/hostilities after that were almost as bad. It poisoned RedHat forever in many, many people's eyes.

        >The fact Rocky Linux [rockylinux.org]

        And Alma Linux, https://almalinux.org/ [almalinux.org] which came first

        >"exists is good"

        Indeed.

        >"Nobody needs RedHat and nobody should be making new installs using it."

        We should actually turn focus back to Debian and so

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kriston ( 7886 )

        I just completed a huge campaign to convert CentOS machines to Ubuntu.

        That ship as sailed.

    • Why would any developer want to help Red Hat after they denied distros access to their packages?

      Because users pick the platform that the developer's software will run on. It's why we have Windows developers.

  • Red Hat requieres accounts just like Windows 11, plus runs a locked down package system. So has Canonical with imposing a proprietary app store and SuSE with geoblocking. Linux is enshittified, and if you try "alternative" distros you usually get your motives questioned by the toxic community. Like it or not, I know so many people who would rather suffer with Windows 11 and telemetry than deal with the logistical nightmare of Linux. Plus the fact people would rather keep using the Nintendo Switch under the

    • Red Hat requieres accounts just like Windows 11, plus runs a locked down package system. So has Canonical with imposing a proprietary app store and SuSE with geoblocking. Linux is enshittified, and if you try "alternative" distros you usually get your motives questioned by the toxic community. Like it or not, I know so many people who would rather suffer with Windows 11 and telemetry than deal with the logistical nightmare of Linux. Plus the fact people would rather keep using the Nintendo Switch under the constant threat of bans rather than the Steam Deck is also something to be looked at.

      Oh no, if I use other distros, people will be mean to me? Meh.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        There actually are problems with many of the distros and particular applications supported by Red Hat. I think there are only 2 or 3 good choices for an enterprise system with special applications.

        OTOH, I've always avoided those "particular applications" that depend on distro-specific features, so this is third-hand reporting. But if you don't want to get locked into a specific environment, avoid applications that require that specific environment. (FWIW, I've found Debian to be easy to use, reliable, an

    • Re:Red Hat has EEE'd Linux (Score:5, Informative)

      by jsonn ( 792303 ) on Thursday July 10, 2025 @07:37AM (#65509380)
      What geoblocking is SuSE doing? You mean the *option* to restrict support contracts to avoid the overreaching US jurisdiction like the secret courts that can order silent compliance?
    • Bingo! Redhat and Canonical wrap enough proprietary extensions around Linux to whomever buys the "enterprise" line, that you are locked in. That is the whole idea. Trap your clients.

      You only have to become dependent on 1 function to be trapped. Pretty easy grift.

    • There's always Debian.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Wrong attitude. The correct attitude is "if you don't like Red Hat, there's Debian, Devuan, Gentoo, Mepis, ....". Don't depend on any single distro. (see https://distrowatch.com/ [distrowatch.com] )

        Debian is my current choice, and has been for a decade, but ANY distro can be coopted. I'm still unhappy wit the way Debian adopted systemd.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          Debian is my current choice, and has been for a decade, but ANY distro can be coopted.

          I would say Debian cannot be "coopted". They may decide to make changes at the core that you don't like, but they're not going to turn into a product with enterprise entitlements.

      • I switched back from Ubuntu to Debian when Snaps became an unavoidable thing. I only switched to Ubuntu for compatibility with more recent software, but nowadays I don't notice anything that's not available on Debian.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          Are you sure snaps are "unavoidable"? I've got many Ubuntu servers and have yet to use a single snap.

          • It's required for several major GUI apps, like Chromium. You can still use apt to install, but the apt package just installs a Snap.

            • >"It's required for several major GUI apps, like Chromium."

              But you should be using Firefox, not chromium ;) And Ubuntu containerizes Firefox as well. And LibreOffice, and GIMP, and all the important things.

              Your point is correct and understood, however. Yes, Ubuntu is trying to force everyone to use containers, which is a horrible move to start with. And Snap containers, which makes the horrible move even more horrible.

              That is one of several reasons droves of people have left Ubuntu for Mint. And Min

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mysidia ( 191772 )

              I see.. Well this is unlikely to affect installs of Ubuntu then, unless you actually install it as a graphical desktop environment. Containerizing Chromium may be a very smart decision for them; however.. the program is a huge security risk, since it interacts with untrusted websites and likely has 0day vulnerabilities yet to be discovered. Sandboxing Chromium's file access to a container could help mitigate some potential exploits.

              I just have no need, since there are several other perfectly robust

        • >"I switched back from Ubuntu to Debian when Snaps became an unavoidable thing. I only switched to Ubuntu for compatibility with more recent software, but nowadays I don't notice anything that's not available on Debian."

          I would be much more inclined to use Debian than Ubuntu on a new server install. And more more inclined to use that or Mint for a desktop install. Even Mint is hedging their bets against Ubuntu with their alternative LDME distro in the wings.

          Given a chance, Ubuntu will act just like Red

    • Open source is particularly resistant to enshittification. Red Hat and Canonical try to enshittify Linux, and then swoops in AlmaLinux and Mint.

    • Linux is enshittified, and if you try "alternative" distros you usually get your motives questioned by the toxic community.

      I moved away from CentOS when RedHat played its packaging games. I had installed RedHat for customers, no more - I will push Debian or Linux Mint - both of which are completely free to use and do not require registration.

  • Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Thursday July 10, 2025 @07:12AM (#65509340)
    So I work on an account with around 200 redhat servers but 60% of them are test/QA. So now we only need to license only the 40% of servers that are production?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      If that's the rule, then you left out that you need to maintain tracking of which severs are in production systems.

      • We are not hacks.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Junta ( 36770 )

          You may know for yourself, but having to reconcile this with having *RedHat* track your usage rather than just yourself is where the aggravation comes in.

          When you have to track for yourself, not to bad. When you have to track in the various ways various vendors demand separate of how you yourself would track....

  • Comply with the GPL and I'll think about it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Temkin ( 112574 ) on Thursday July 10, 2025 @07:27AM (#65509364)

    Restricting redistribution of SRPM's is a license violation. You cannot add third party terms to existing GPL code. IBM needs to comply with the GPL.

    T

    • "IBM needs to comply with the GPL."

      Apparently not...

    • Red Hat is only required to give people SRPMs which correspond to the RPMs they distributed, to the very same entities they distributed the RPMs to. Nobody else. They already do that, and the recipient is free to strip out the trademarks themselves and redistribute them (this is how clones get legally made). However, if the recipient does that, Red Hat does not have to continue supplying them with new RPMs, which means the supply of new SRPMs is naturally cut off. This is still fully GPL compliant.

      Howeve

      • This is still fully GPL compliant.

        It is not. You just specified an additional condition for receiving the SRPMs, which is a violation of the GPL.

        • They think they're compliant. If you disagree, you're free to take them to court - though the legal bills will be huge.

          They offer you the source code, and you're allowed to distribute it. They won't (and can't) take legal action against you for doing that, and they will honour all their contracts with you regardless. They won't do anything to you at all. They will just decline to do any new business with you in future. That's certainly against the spirit of the GPL. Is it against the letter? Well, that's wh

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            They won't (and can't) take legal action against you for doing that, and they will honour all their contracts with you regardless. They won't do anything to you at all. They will just decline to do any new business with you in future.

            I have a novel proposition for you then.. How about you mirror RPMs and SRPMs privately. And when the SRPMs finally get redistributed publicly it will be by a 3rd party several distribution hops away from any of the companies that hold the support agreements. There will t

        • You just specified an additional condition for receiving the SRPMs, which is a violation of the GPL.

          If you are not the copyright holder, to be entitled to the source code under the GPL, you have to have received a copy of the corresponding binaries. That is a GPL requirement, not an additional one, it is the written offer part of the licence. Red Hat will freely supply you with SRPMs related to the RPMs they distributed to you (including those needed to build the SRPMs). As they contribute all their other patches upstream for any future RPMs (which they have not yet distributed to you) they have still me

      • The GPL prohibits placing additional restrictions on distribution.

        That is exactly what they are doing with their other license.

        • Well the extra restrictions are not based on copyright licenses, but support agreements. GPL only thought about IP. I wonder what would happen if employer X if company Y just sends the the SRPMs to Rocky Linux. Do X loose Redhat support, and will Y have to cover the cost?

          • GPL doesn't specify what type of additional restrictions.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

              And the restrictions you're against aren't on the GPL code itself.

              GPL only applies to the code being used, and Red Hat is providing code to you. To which you are legally allowed to get the source code per the GPL. And you are also legally allowed to distribute the source code and binaries.

              Red Hat is not obligated to keep providing you new binaries through - their support agreement might say you lose access to future updates, but everything GPL you have is still yours to distribute per the GPL.

              The GPL is a c

      • >"Honestly though, at this point, it might be wiser for people to consider repackaging Ubuntu Pro packages (for server use) minus the branding"

        No thanks. I see Ubuntu as better than RedHat, but just as irritating and hostile in many ways. It is why I use Mint for desktops (like an ever increasing number of Linux users) and not Ubuntu. But Mint really meant only for desktop, not server use...

        I would love to see business resources funneled directly into Debian, so its stable release could become the new

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      In their Opinion they comply with the GPL, because you are not legally prevented from redistributing the SRPMs.

      They have a Policy that they will retaliate against you distributing SRPMs by terminating your contract and access to download software from them.

  • Debian Solves All the Issues (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SlashbotAgent ( 6477336 ) on Thursday July 10, 2025 @07:43AM (#65509392)

    Every other distro action that I see further supports my growing opinion that Debian is the answer.

    Debian solves all the issues. It deserves to be the distro of choice.

    • No distro without rolling release can solve every problem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        Rolling release distros can bring a distinct set of problems.

        • I only know my own experience. I'm on Arch and I have never had an issue that wasn't caused by something I did wrong at some point. When that does happen, there is a community to help me. Although granted, I don't know if these communities will survive now that I can just ask AI for the solution instead of asking for the good of the community to see the newer answer.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Junta ( 36770 )

            In a fair share of the ecosystem with no regard for backwards compatibility, (especially looking at Python projects), it can be maddening to try to work with fluctuating dependencies and dependent software that isn't equipped to deal. Using a modern non-rolling release has given me enough headaches with software that *largely* works but some piece is broken because, say, they hadn't fully tested with Python 3.13 yet.

            The biggest problem rolling release solves is impatience to get to new functions that some

            • Ok well, first of all if you are a developer and you aren't using some of form portable container by now for your environment, than you aren't really taking advantage of a solution that has existed for that problem for some time now.

              Furthermore I have done a lot of large projects on Arch and for me the key has been to just make sure its up to date. Python espectially you set up an environment anywhere on anything and you have access to everything. So again, maybe not using the solution for the problem.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Junta ( 36770 )

                If you mean service containerization like podman or docker, then that's still pretty awkward to juggle around and I end up curating a bunch of OSes. But they don't really provide for 'desktop' usage anyway without a lot of manual effort.

                If you mean like flatpak or snap, I've been game but just today I tried to switch from distro packaged application to distro provided flatpak and to flathub provided flatpak and ultimately the native one actually came closest to working, with the flatpaks being even worse a

          • Of course that AI 'knowledge' is largely based on community content - if the communities die the AI will not 'learn' as wide as it does now, can do deep with official documentation I guess but I would it see it quickly fall behind with future distros.

      • Debian unstable is no less stable than any other rolling release, and I've been running the same installation (disk moved between machines and cloned a couple of times) since 2004 with no catastrophic failures.

    • And Devuan solves all the issues of Debian!

      • And Devuan solves all the issues of Debian!

        Except old packages.

        I run Devuan, but I find myself constantly having to install newer versions of software out of band because the packaged versions are unacceptably old. This includes XFCE, there are important bugs and feature improvements in just slightly newer versions which haven't been packaged for the release version. And last I looked the next release was still being indefinitely delayed for some goofy holdup, I don't even remember what it was.

        Debian is also really bad at multiarch. They do support

    • >"Every other distro action that I see further supports my growing opinion that Debian is the answer."

      I concur. I wish we would pour the effort and funds into the Debian project directly and make its LTS version the new definition of "Enterprise Linux". If vendors back it, it can happen. I have had enough of corporate capture and monetization of what server Linux should be.

      I am all for paid actual support- tech calls, installs, Email, chat groups, training, education certifications, equipment certific

  • An a now expired RHCE. Screw Red Hat. They burned all the good will bridges when they stopped developing CentOS. I deploy Debian or Rocky Linux now in enterprise environments. It works great.

  • Er... is the sales pipeline looking a bit thin, Redhat?

    Honestly, after stiffing so many people with some utterly awful licensing moves, some utterly awful repository moved affecting Centos and general bad behaviour, it feels unlikely that too many developers are going to suddenly leap to use Redhat. If they're going anywhere, they'll pick Rocky, Ubuntu, Debian or anywhere except Redhat.

    The only people taking this up will be folks working in shops which already has Redhat in production, and is already in bed

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      RedHat has been in a weird place for a while now. Some folks at RHEL took Oracle Linux pretty personally, and basically ever since that launched they've been wanting to burn down the whole clone ecosystem if they could tank Oracle Linux in the process. Which is crazy, since as far as I can tell Oracle Linux is largely ignored except for some real die-hard Oracle shops that probably would have run Solaris if Oracle forced them to, so it's not like RH had a huge shot anyway, and they aren't really that much

      • That's a good point - developer access to documentation. My shop uses RHEL in production, yet I, as the lowly devops guy can't get to the documentation because for me to get a login means license conversations and worlds of paperwork.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Junta ( 36770 )

          Yeah, similar story, it's weird because people just end up searching for Rocky or Alma Linux content on the same thing and using that to try to work with RHEL...

          • Yeah, if they ever did actually destroy all the clones, we'd probably have to stop using RHEL in production because we wouldn't be able to fix anything.

    • Slackware, all the developer tools plus all the includes, libraries and header files installed by default, I like the way Slackware does it clean simple & elegant

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. And even there people will try to develop on a sane Distro and only deploy on this crap.

  • Why would anybody trust IBM errr Redhat to do the right thing after so many demonstrations to the contrary?

  • It is probably not possible to make a worse distro and one further removed from FOSS spirit than Red Hat.

  • I think the following are the main differences in the subscriptions.

    Developer Subscription

    • Intended for one person
    • Up to 16 instances, physical or virtual but not cloud-based
    • Production use is permitted

    Business Developers

    • Intended for a corporate environment
    • Up to 25 instances (physical, virtual, or cloud-based)
    • Production use not permitted

  • I believe the following are the major differences between the Developer Subscriptions that have been available for years and the Business Developer Subscriptions that are new.

    Developer Subscription
    - Intended for one person
    - Up to 16 instances, physical or virtual but not cloud-based
    - Production use is permitted

    Business Developer Subscription
    - Intended for a corporate environment
    - Up to 25 instances (physical, virtual, or cloud-based)
    - Production use not permitted

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember: use logout to logout.

Close