161–170 of 642 posts
What is the point of offering your software to the community as open source if the only end game is to make people dependent and then pull a fast one on them. Sigh
CentOS Stream is RHEL Testing (like Debian Testing). As stated in https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/centos-stream-building-innova... "CentOS Stream now sits between the Fedora Project’s operating system innovation and RHEL’s production stability" So if we compare to Debian, this means: Fedora Debian unstable (Sid) CentOS Stream Debian testing (currently Bullseye) RHEL Debian stable (currently Buster)
Rawhide Sid
Fedora Semi-stable-ish but short-lived and moves fast.
CentOS Stream Bullseye but possibly less stable than Fedora in parts.
RHEL Buster
So Centos 8 will be a beta test stream for features and fixes, but for CVEs it will lag behind RH. That's an interesting twist.
Of course, with this it might be even slower, in that first RHEL pushes out the security update, and then people will start looking whether that change needs to be forward-ported to CentOS stream, or whether it can be used as-is etc.
Among existing alternatives such as Ubuntu LTS, Debian, openSUSE, etc. which is the least likely to meet the CentOS fate (I mean acquired by a large corporation)?
Ubuntu is already owned by a large corportation.
How does this affect FermiLAB? They stopped development on Scientific Linux to rebase on CentOS and now CentOS might not be useful for their purposes.
> If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not meet your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Hat about options. Not exactly unexpected, but disappointing: if you want to continue using something like CentOS, pay for RHEL. Lots of web hosting providers will be quite concerned.
Why exactly is that disappointing? Isn't it more disappointing that some companies expect to be able to run the same OS for 13 years and get security patches backported for free? I don't think this will hurt RedHat at all. How many RHEL customers are actually generated as a result of providing CentOS for free? Not many I suspect. Those who want to learn about RHEL can still get Fedora, or CentOS Stream, or a RedHat d…
Security patches are not backports, they are security patches that obviously should be for free, Redhat is making loads of money off free software already.
I seam to have more issue at work dealing with older versions of packages on CentOS that lag behind up to date packages on "unstable" distros.
As a fan of rolling release (btw I use arch), I will love not having to deal with EOL CentOS upgrades at work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonder if the web hosting industry will rebel and build another RHEL clone project that just gets the 10-year supported patches. Red Hat still has to release the patches, right? A really big chunk of the world's traditionally shared hosted websites run on CentOS, because most commercial control panel packages and hosting automation systems are built for that. A rebadged CentOS is also AWS's default distro. Wonder of…
That already exists and is called CloudLinux. It is very cheap but not free. Other RHEL-clones: Oracle Linux (best one), Springdale Linux. Other alternatives: openSUSE Leap and Debian. I am not even listing Ubuntu because I hate it since snaps.
But something like Springdale, given resources, might be able to provide. They're still tracking RHEL 7, though.
Debian and Ubuntu, which offer five years of Long Term Support are the next best thing available, and that's already kind of tight for long-term deployments of self-hosted, old-fashioned business software.
Debian is particularly impressive, since they, on paper, aim to support all packages with security fixes, whereas Ubuntu's main repo is a lot more limited.
OpenSUSE Leap versions seem to get three years, which really isn't enough software that needs to just work for a long while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work for Oracle on their cloud platform (including reasonably closely with the Oracle Linux team, as my team is responsible for the main platform images). Speaking entirely for myself, opinions my own, may not reflect my employer etc. etc: I came in to this job expecting OL to just be a CentOS clone, and not really expecting much from the kernel they ship with it. It is both a CentOS clone, and a bunch more. Oracle…
So is it a drop-in replacement for CentOS 8.x without any nonsense? I.e. same packages, compatibility with upstream, etc.
I would point out, I'm not in the OL org, I have absolutely no idea what this change means for Oracle Linux. Oracle Linux is based off the CentOS sources as that's the only way that RedHat was making the source code to their distribution available (there way of meeting the terms of the GPL). RedHat has to make their source code available in one form or another so I can't imagine that this would have any impact on OL, but that's entirely guess work.