Whats said in this blogpost may be 100% true, and of course red hat does do a lot for the community, but unfortunately the damage is done. Its always going to feel like:
* Red Hat was a bastion of open source
* Red Hat sold out to IBM
* Red Hat stopped being Red Hat, and started being IBM by focusing on $$ over open source
* Red Hat reputation degrades as $$ are put first, killing off centos, now this, just downhill from here. >
Is it true though? - he says "when we develop fixes for issues in RHEL, we don't just apply them to RHEL - they are applied upstream first, to projects like Fedora, CentOS Stream or the kernel project itself, and we then backport them".
"Additionally, CentOS Stream updates often lag behind RHEL updates. This is because Red Hat won't commit an embargoed security update to CentOS Stream until after it ships in RHEL, so the developers responsible for the update will sometimes forget to commit it to CentOS Stream until a week or two after it's shipped. You end up in a weird position where you get most updates faster than RHEL users, but you often have to wait to get critical security updates. "
It's true that important or critical fixes (embargoed or not) are applied to RHEL before CentOS Stream. Forgetting to apply it seems unlikely because it would be marked as a regression in the next minor release of RHEL. Usually all the red tape is ready and you only need to "git push" as soon as the RHEL packages are shipped.
If not embargoed, however, they are still applied to Fedora first. But most fixes of that severity are embargoed anyway and therefore the patches simply cannot be applied to public source trees without breaking the embargo rules.
Before the "killing of CentOS": CentOS is based off of RHEL (basically being identical with packages, just not "officially professionally supported", I think)
After the "killing of CentOS": RHEL is based off of CentOS (with CentOS-Stream being "the staging" for RHEL packages)
But I actually have no actual clue what haseen going on there and have just been somewhat following this entire "drama" with bbit of interest, so I might be completely wrong in how it actually work
If you don’t know what DaVinci is then this isn’t any use to you because it’s an industry specific application. It’s a little like how Docker or git doesn’t need explaining to (non-junior) engineers.
I’m very surprised to see DaVinci make the front page on HN but also very glad too.
That's not very helpful... people come here to learn about new things. Maybe it wouldn't be of any use to them, but it's clearly something that piqued their curiosity.
Others have already explained what that product is so I didn’t need to do that however they hadn’t explained why the site isn’t more specific. So I was addressing the GPs criticism about why that site doesn’t explain what DaVinci is.
Anyone that has taken a mild interest in video editing will encounter DaVinci right away in "top 10 list of video editors". You're talking about this as if it's some hidden industry tool.
> I’m genuinely one of the friendliest and most helpful people you’ll meet in real life
I wasn’t suggesting it’s an hidden industry tool. If I were I wouldnt have compared it to git and Docker. You’re reading far too much into my comment and I’m really not in the mood for a character assassination today (full of cold) so I’ve deleted most of the detail and stripped my post back to the bare minimum. Don’t expect a follow up reply
I don't think the GP is talking about what DaVinci is, but what the *plugin* does. I find myself in the same shoes as the GP here. Maybe I'm not the target market of course but I was just curious.
I get your point, and maybe as someone who's not part of said industry I'm missing something, but it seems like it'd be helpful even to the target audience to actually show how this plugin can transform video.
Kind of expensive if you are a Linux hobbyist, $5000 (*$4999) for collection of filters over another proprietary film editing software, which was designed to be a good standalone color&fx software, but apparently isn't.
I'm not surprised they skipped the intro-level demo because it's a pretty niche industry-specific product. I can't imagine even the prosumer market would use Davinci, let alone get excited about plugins for it. Kind of surprised that this is getting general-audience traction here. This isn't my exact area of expertise so I could be wrong, but I'm in a parallel field, and I can't imagine non-film folks would fall into any useful target demographic for them, even accidentally. My guess is they're hiring developers.
Davinci resolve is great for prosumers and hobbyists.
Youtube is awash with Davinci Resolve tutorials for everything from basic non-linear video editing to compositing, sound editing and grading.
The basic version is free, and the paid version is a one-time $300, or 7.5 months of Adobe Premiere+After Effects or Audition.
BlackMagic also produce gear like the atem mini beloved by streamers and the BMPCC (blackmagic pocket cinema cameras) that are very much aimed at prosumers.
If any one needs to edit any video, even just a short recreational youtube video, I point them towards Davinci, because the price is right and there are so many tutorials.
> I can't imagine even the prosumer market would use Davinci, let alone get excited about plugins for it.
For what it's worth: DaVinci has both a free and a paid version - and the paid version is not even 300$. If you're an indie filmmaker or hobbyist, it's certainly a better offering than a Premiere Pro subscription unless your muscle memory is trained too hard on Adobe tooling.
> and I can't imagine non-film folks would fall into any useful target demographic for them, even accidentally. My guess is they're hiring developers.
Many tech people have to deal with video shit at some point in their career - it helps to at least know some basic cutting to make a screen recording for a tutorial way better for the viewers.
Yep, this. We used DaVinci Resolve to cut together a music video for a little between-friends contest, and for some tutorial videos. It's way more than I could even dream of needing, and it's pretty heavyweight, but I found the other free alternatives just didn't work well for me.
It's a lot like how people might use Photoshop both for heavyweight professional graphic design and digital art, and also for making silly mashup pictures for Reddit, except they don't even have to pirate it!
As a non-film person you'd very likely not have a clue how to use a professional color grading solution like Davinci Resolve (for which this is a plugin) to begin with.
As a VFX-person I'd be curious about a before and after on a crisp digital image with multiple settings.
At your next job offer, yes evaluate the work itself, but after you've qualified it, spend more effort seeing if you can connect with the people. Come for the money, stay for the friends.
Best piece of advice, take a stand. Have a perspective. And stay focused on a small amount of things that you care about. This might start out as one thing - which is completely fine. The rest, make sure you set up a scheme where you are empowering others, and there is someone who is directly in charge of other tasks, and delegate it to someone, or a specific team. The worst is when something is "everyone's job" - but make sure that the person who is in charge knows how to solicit opinion and isn't a dictator. Make sure you can use the team to give you the info you need, so you can make decisions. Making (good informed) decisions is your best point of leverage to keep things flowing, but make sure you are making decision at your level (and not too low, which is micromanagement). Feel free to redirect decisions that are someone else's to make. Don't be a single point of failure, empower others. Default to using questions, as opposed to prescribing answers as a tool for mentoring your direct reports. Make sure you are doing 1-on-1's and anything else that lets you see the truth of the state of things, and also so you can see peoples weaknesses and strengths so you can delegate tasks appropriately and coach up that talent.
Meeting with people, Hiring, setting up correct processes are your main tools.
Very few entrepreneurs understand that sure, market matters, and sure product fit matters, however the variable of time is an interesting one. Most startups growth looks super slow, then ramps up, and then quickly ramps up. This is very similar graph to investing $$ with e.g. a X% annual return. The key similarity is the concept of compounding. Individual features, marketing campaigns, blog articles, monetization channels probably won't have an immediate impact, but over time can compound. Similarly, entrepreneurs often think that developing a feature will immediately cause users to sign up. In reality, all you've done is "invest" your money, but you need time to work it's compounding magix.
Disagree with some of this. There is a need to define what 'management' actually 'is'. Great 'managers' are leaders imho. The difference being, that they help inspire and motivate a team, and help contribute to vision, direction, and clarity which a team can rally around, while encouraging collaboration and excellence, and setting clear and ambitious expectations.
Great ICs actually have a huge advantage here, because the key skill for an IC is often technology skills, whereas the key skill for a great leader/manager is trust with the team. Being able to have a deep technical understanding of the problem space will help to develop trust that much faster. However, the key transition is then to get out of the way, and use your knowledge to help challenge ideas while growing the team. The #1 piece of advice is to hold back from giving answers, and instead, challenge people with questions, to let them do the thinking.
Toward expanding the explanation, this is why I separated them. Leadership is neither sufficient or necessary for managers - as evidenced by the survival of every large organization. Management skill is neither sufficient or necessary for leadership, because leadership is less a thing than it is just the effect of being followed. I'm a big advocate of the necessity of charisma and inspiration, but crappy managers often think of themselves as leaders as a substitute and an excuse for failure, and leaders often don't accept responsibility for creating and managing the value feedback loop that sustains their teams - also as a substitute and an excuse for failure. I've reckoned with both, and they're hard to face, but well worth it. Somewhere between these poles is truth, and the art of managing and leading that I think you're referencing is technique applied to the more fundamental role differences I was implying.
I don't have much to add to the conversation here, but an upvote doesn't seem to suffice in order to indicate that your separation of leadership and management into two separate (and potentially overlapping) qualities feels like a really useful one, thank you.
