Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

lists.centos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 642 posts

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#351

Post by davoneus »

_-david-_ wrote: post #314
IntelMiner wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think many people who want to use something stable like CentOS, but don't want to pay for a RHEL support contract would want to pay Oracle for RHEL-but-with-Oracle-sprinkles-on-top

Oracle Linux is free with optional paid support. "Unlike many other commercial Linux distributions, Oracle Linux is easy to download and completely free to use, distribute, and update. Oracle Linux is available under the GNU General Public License (GPLv2). Support contracts are available from Oracle. " https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/027617.pdf [PDF]

never, Ever, EVER trust Oracle. Especially with something as important as an open source product. Evidence: Oracle's Sen. VP Glueck statement that "There is no math that can justify open source from a cost perspective." No chance you'll ever see me running OEL.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#352

Post by moray »

kcb wrote: post #25
messe wrote: post #11

> CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end at the end of 2021 Does this mean that CentOS 8 is EOL come 2021? Weren't maintenance updates meant to go to 2029? What about everybody who built their product on the assumption that there would be a stable CentOS until then?

Yes. https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product It used to be this. https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.cent...

Wow.. I literally just migrated my main production mail server to centos8 hoping to let it run for another 10 years... I guess it is time to study alternatives..

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#353

Post by bonzini »

sk5t wrote: post #267
Twirrim wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's essentially no different from how things currently are. RedHat releases updates, CentOS group picks those up and builds CentOS packages from them. They usually lag a day or two. They really lagged on the PLATYPUS CPU vulnerability for CentOS 7, because they were dealing with a backlog from the 7.9 bump. Took them several days to get the patches out.

How is "everything a little after" the same as "some things prior, other things after"?

Patches for those security issues are embargoed until specified dates. Red Hat simply cannot add them to CentOS stream before that date.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#354

Post by kbenson »

bonzini wrote: post #348
fweespeech wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> edit: after a little thought it seems that moving to RHEL might cost us the least amount of money and downtime. Still sucks and not what we need to be working on right now. And that is exactly what IBM is counting on. Vendor lock in. We are switching to Debian-based distros because, frankly, we don't trust IBM not to knife us in the back even on RHEL for more money. Of course we have the advantage of being able to…

This is not about IBM. It may not be a pleasant change for everyone, but it's a change that has strictly technical motives. CentOS was acqui-hired because Red Hat's upstream for layered products (at the time mostly RDO/OpenStack and oVirt/RHEV) could not use Fedora because it was too far from RHEL a year of two after RHEL was released, could not use RHEL because upstream contributors would have to pay, and could not…

That in no way explains why they don't continue to have both. They indeed will have both for another year. There was no requirement the Stream product even use the CentOS name.

CentOS was a community project whose leadership and control was taken over (acqui-hired as you say) by Red Hat and then it's core use case for the majority of people actually using it was discontinued. That is a statement of facts that happened as I understand them, not some spin on my part.

If Red Hat had not stepped in, perhaps some of CentOS problems (trouble getting releases out on time) would have been worse, or perhaps some other companies would have stepped in. We don't know, but we do know that CentOS has not been changed to be something different than it was before. It used to be a free re-spin of RHEL. Going forward it's something entirely different.

Red Hat always had the option to stop funding/providing resources to CentOS and name their new thing something else, but they didn't, and now they've effectively co-opted CentOS to be something different than it was originally intended to be.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#355

Post by p49k »

vbezhenar wrote: post #288
Jimmc414 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Imagine if you were running a business, and deployed CentOS 8 based on the 10 year lifespan promise. You're totally screwed now, and Red Hat knows it. The hypothetical you posed is the actual situation, I am now learning, I have apparently forced on my team. We've ramped up labor 3x revenue preparing product launch in 90 - 180 days. We created an image containing centos 8 , Java , postgres and tomcat a year ago an…

Consider downgrading to CentOS 7. It should work for 4 more years.

Running modern versions of software on CentOS 7 can be a giant pain due to the old version of glibc that’s baked in.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#356

Post by bonzini »

nemetroid wrote: post #316
Thaxll wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutly not, it's going to be the Fedora version of RHEL. Pretty clear: "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." Of course no one want to run CentOS Stream because it's going to be broken / unstable, completely the opposite of what CentOS is.

Fedora is the Fedora version of RHEL. Are you saying that CentOS Stream is going to be directly equivalent to Fedora?

Fedora is (up to) years ahead of RHEL, and periodically forked. CentOS stream is up to a few months ahead of RHEL, and developed from the same Fedora fork that RHEL is.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#357

Post by wang_li »

bonzini wrote: post #349
wang_li wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They won't release sources for those packages unless you'll ask for those packages (you, as a paid client, not you as nobody in the Internet). If the code in question is licensed under the GPL and Red Hat isn't the owner of the code, then I as a rando on the Internet can ask them for the source and if they don't provide it, the person who does own the code can sue them and revoke their license to distribute said co…

You can only ask them for the source if you already have the binaries and you've gotten them from Red Hat. If you got the binaries from someone else, you can ask that someone else.

Can you help me understand why GPL v2 3(b) doesn't obligate Red Hat to provide source code for the kernel, as an example, to anyone who asks?

>3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#358

Post by Yeroc »

busterarm wrote: post #87
marktangotango wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a money grab, pure and simple. They've (Redhat, let alone IBM) done it before (see below). What happens in practice with this sort of "rolling release" is users end up patching endlessly in production, which no sane person or organization would ever want to do. This was the exact situation for another Redhat acquisition for years now. JBoss EAP and community editions (wildfly now I suppose), everyone who could m…

Except IBM thinks that this will convert everyone to RHEL licenses and I'm positive that is not what's going to happen. Ubuntu is already the default for people with ML pipelines and more and more vendors are targeting Ubuntu first for their software. CentOS will be effectively dead for a lot of companies starting next year (or 2024). (At least we aren't planning on licensing 10^5 systems on RHEL...). I imagine for t…

This. We run CentOS for non-critical stuff and RHEL for stuff that really needs support. If we need to switch off CentOS we certainly won't be using RHEL either. Doesn't make sense to be running a Debian flavour mixed with RHEL since the two a significantly different.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#359

Post by jms55 »

Somewhat off topic: Are there any kind of stateless, managed-for-me server images?

I recently set up a digital ocean droplet with the default Ubuntu 20.04 Server image to host my web app. I don't like how I'm in charge of installing security updates and rebooting it (I don't really care about downtime), and I really don't like how I don't really remember what packages and commands I ran to install everything.

Presumably, this is what digital ocean app platform is for, where I could just provide a docker container. But the specs of the 5$ app platform container were half as good as the 5$ droplet, and I can run multiple things on the droplet in the future.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#360

Post by vbezhenar »

p49k wrote: post #355
vbezhenar wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider downgrading to CentOS 7. It should work for 4 more years.

Running modern versions of software on CentOS 7 can be a giant pain due to the old version of glibc that’s baked in.

Java and Postgres will work.
Post reply on HN