Red Hat Gives Developers Free Access To Enterprise Linux For Business Use (nerds.xyz)
- Reference: 0178323008
- News link: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/25/07/10/0112201/red-hat-gives-developers-free-access-to-enterprise-linux-for-business-use
- Source link: https://nerds.xyz/2025/07/red-hat-enterprise-linux-business-developers/
> Red Hat has introduced a new option that [2]gives developers a fast lane to enterprise-grade Linux without needing to go through IT. The new release, called [3]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.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~BrianFagioli
[2] https://nerds.xyz/2025/07/red-hat-enterprise-linux-business-developers/
[3] https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-introduces-red-hat-enterprise-linux-business-developers-aligning-application-development-production-consistency
Red Hat has EEE'd Linux (Score:2)
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
Re: Red Hat has EEE'd Linux (Score:2)
You have to pay to get all security updates in Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2)
> You have to pay to get all security updates in Ubuntu.
The quality of Slashdot trolls has gone way down.
Re: (Score:2)
> You can run Ubuntu for free and run free apps not store ones. you could run Centos or other free Red Het derived distros
> but instead you whine. The enshitification of the entitled Karens continues
Your post demonstrates how on Slashdot, the truth gets modded down. I've deployed a number of Linux systems, and never used Red Hat once. Nor do I intend to. No matter how mean the "toxic community" is to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Centos was taken over by Red Hat, they've essentially killed that distro. Movement from the news somehow reinstates a free entreprise edition, but at worse conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
> 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?
Geeze, Wheezy, if the US was as bad as you claim, you'd be visited by a militarized drone in 3, 2, 1....
I always wondered what you and the turn every thread into an anti US rant crowd think you are accomplishing. A lot of us laugh, and fun to troll y'all back once in a while.
But my mamma taught me not to pick on retarded people, they can't help that they are dull. But tell Kim you've done your job. You'll get an extra 50 calories at dinner tonight. Just don't get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, and if your father spent those 30 seconds with something more productive instead - like taking out the garbage for example, there would be fewer retards around to pick on.
Dood! Me old man was yencing your mother at the time! We might be brothers, although she was quite popular.
Re: Red Hat has EEE'd Linux (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always Debian.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [1]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.
[1] https://distrowatch.com/
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Red Hat has EEE'd Linux (Score:2)
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)
Are you sure snaps are "unavoidable"? I've got many Ubuntu servers and have yet to use a single snap.
Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
If that's the rule, then you left out that you need to maintain tracking of which severs are in production systems.
Re: (Score:2)
We are not hacks.
Re: (Score:2)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
.. we have AI and automation.
Comply with the GPL and I'll think about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: Comply with the GPL and I'll think about it... (Score:2)
"IBM needs to comply with the GPL."
Apparently not...
They are compliant (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
However, it is easy to get around this restriction by renting a cloud computer, where you are then entitled to all the RPMs and SRPMs from the cloud provider instead, which Red Hat will not terminate their agreement with (or they will lose big money). So this is a non-issue.
Honestly though, at this point, it might be wiser for people to consider repackaging Ubuntu Pro packages (for server use) minus the branding, as they also provide very long term support like Red Hat now, but their package selection is much larger and with a much larger supported feature set.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
They Are Not Compliant (Score:2)
The GPL prohibits placing additional restrictions on distribution.
That is exactly what they are doing with their other license.
Re: They Are Not Compliant (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No distro without rolling release can solve every problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Rolling release distros can bring a distinct set of problems.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: Debian Solves All the Issues (Score:3)
And Devuan solves all the issues of Debian!
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps I should have said Devuan solves the problem of systemd... I didn't want to start a huge fight, just a little one :-)
Re: You couldn't pay me to use this shit (Score:1)
I've been using Linux extensively for more than 25 years. Systemd has been one of the better improvements looking back. I don't understand why there are still people bashing it.
Re: (Score:1)
I have also been using Linux for 25 years. I do not see how systemd has improved anything.
Screw them (Score:2)
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.
Pipeline? (Score:2)
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:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with my technical assessment that OEL seems credible, but as you say, to deepen a business relationship with Oracle is to invite huge pains and audits and invoices for things you never actually got but they claim you did. OEL nails the technical merits of logistics, but I couldn't trust the business behind it enough to tolerate it.
Alma Linux is probably my favorite of the RedHat-alikes, but would have ignored the hell out of them, Rocky, and Oracle if RHN wasn't so obnoxious about making me prove to
Re: (Score:2)
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
Fuck 'em. (Score:2)
> 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)
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.