A lot of debate today about “community” vs “corporate”-driven distributions. I (think I) understand the basic difference between the two, but what confuses me is when I read, for example:

…distro X is a community-driven distribution based on Ubuntu…

Now, from what I understand, Ubuntu is corporate-driven (Canonical). So in which sense is distro X above “community-driven”, if it’s based on Ubuntu? And more concretely: what would happen to distribution X if Canonical suddeny made Ubuntu closed-source? (Edit: from the nice explanations below, this example with Ubuntu is not fully realistic – but I hope you get my point.)

Possibly my question doesn’t make full sense because I don’t understand the whole topic. Apologies in that case – I’m here to learn. Cheers!

  • digdilem
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nice summary. One minor, but important, addition to your post:

    much worse for Fedora, they have been culturally enslaved by Red Hat, 
    

    Not just culturally - Redhat legally own Fedora too. Legally owning Centos was how Redhat managed to kill Centos Linux. One of the key things Greg wdid when creating Rocky two years ago was set the legal status so that Rocky could never be taken over in the way Centos was.

    • stravanasu@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Interesting legal ramifications that I wasn’t aware of. Does Canonical own Ubuntu? from what I gather in the other comments, it doesn’t really?

    • SALT@lemmy.my.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yet he exercise something beyond his right, to make CIQ parent company of Rocky for profit… What is the different with Red Hat, they even won a lot of EL contract because it’s cheaper…

      Alma is better, they are non profit and driving fedora in some SIG…

      Red Hat is sponsor of Fedora not only on paper, but also on reality. Rocky is sponsored by CIQ on paper, but in reality owned by CIQ… Single person…

      • digdilem
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not quite but it’s not black and white. Rocky is owned by Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation, but that is owned by Greg Kurtzner because a legal entity needs to be owned by /someone/ in law.

        I personally trust him because I know a little of his story and his involvement with Centos before Rocky (ie, he cofounded it), but I appreciate that might not be enough for everyone. I’ve followed the project closely since its inception and am very happy with its progress and outlook so far, solely from a non-commercial aspect.

        And Alma is NOT better. That’s like saying Cheese is better than Apples, or Titanium’s better than Lead. They’re different distros with quite different approaches. It’s fantastic both of them entered this market and both of them are doing well, choice is the absolute best thing about Foss.

        (More detail about Rocky’s legal makeup here, if you’re interested) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Linux - I also have no commercial interest in it other than a user)