CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream • Hacker News Board

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#361

Post by vbezhenar » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #307

vbezhenar wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the best way is to allow free use of RHEL for those who don't want to pay for it.

I mean, that's de-facto what CentOS was ; RHEL but non-paid and with different branding. But I mean... they were built from the (exact) same sources, so similar that you could convert between them by un/installing a few packages.

The difference is that CentOS is really free. RHEL free will be whatever RedHat wants. Of course it won't be as free as CentOS. But if it'll be free enough to satisfy most CentOS users, that might be good enough.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#362

Post by bonzini » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

wang_li wrote: post #357

bonzini wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 year…

Because Red Hat offers source code following section 3(a) instead. Thus, section 3(b) does not apply.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#363

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #184

busterarm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why wouldn't they switch to Debian instead? Their emphasis on stability matches that of CentOS more than Ubuntu, or at least did.

Ubuntu has more predictable long term support.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#364

Post by bonzini » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #354

bonzini wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 happene…

> That in no way explains why they don't continue to have both

Because they don't need it anymore. CentOS Linux or other rebuilds can still exist (just not using the name; I disagree with that but I can understand Red Hat doesn't want its name attached to something that might have large delays in security fixes in the future) if somebody funds it or volunteers to do it, just like CentOS still supports Xen but RHEL does not.

Also for what is worth there have been lots of engineering changes to RHEL in the past couple of years that make nightlies (and CentOS Stream) much more stable than they used to be, especially with respect to regressions. Running CentOS Stream is not going to be like Fedora Rawhide or Debian sid.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#365

Post by symlinkk » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

kcb wrote: post #322

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... as opposed to paid/proprietary software, that never breaks compatibility, hikes prices, or screws over their customers?

At least they don't advertise a support period then cut it 8 years short.

You’re conflating “free software” with “community support”. It’s possible to run free software with a paid support contract backed by a corporation - thats what RHEL offers, and Ubuntu with their Ubuntu Advantage program.

CentOS offered free software, but with unpaid community support, which isn’t guaranteed at all as there’s no contract.

This is an unpopular opinion but this is why I prefer Ubuntu over Debian - there’s a corporation on the other end that’s being paid to update software, and if you choose, you can always upgrade to paid support that is backed by a legally binding contract.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#366

Post by zxspectrum1982 » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

zxspectrum1982 wrote: post #180

FeistySkink wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the package management like? Does it support flatpaks? And what about LTS?

Packages are RPMS, managed with zypper. You may also use dnf but you will miss some of the advanced features provided by dnf (e. g. the concept of patches vs updates), there was a zypper vs dnf thread recently in the openSUSE mailing lists. It does support flatpaks. There is no free openSUSE LTS. The LTS is called SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, costs some money (unless you are a developer, in that case you get free su…

Ooops, I meant "you will miss some of the advanced features provided by zypper". It's dnf what's lacking the concept of patch, and many more.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#367

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

wang_li wrote: post #357

bonzini wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 year…

[deleted]

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#368

Post by merb » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

dilawar wrote: post #103

happyjack wrote: post #51

Wow. I kind of new this day was coming. I work in engineering / science (not comp. sci or developing) and all our software vendors are Windows or RHEL support only. Although if you know your way around linux any flavor will do, but RHEL is the "standard" for support. It's kind of like "insurance." We expect this to compile / work for RHEL and NOTHING else, because RHEL is stable, predictable, and boring. I've run mos…

I have been using openSUSE. It's been pretty stable on the laptop. On laptop, I use the Tumbleweed (rolling release) and 15.1 or 15.2 on servers. Give it a try.

I'm also a big fan of opensuse lately especially their tumbleweed microos. it's such a breeze to use transactional-update (automatically) and reboot a fleet with some looking mechanism (even with k8s kured).

suse cured my containerlinux wound. (if suse gets bought by ibm than I will be furious or if they kill microos)

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#369

Post by Twirrim » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

symlinkk wrote: post #270

cozzyd wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the question will be how fast CentOS Stream releases fixes compared to Debian Stable/Testing and Ubuntu LTS.

It will almost certainly be slower than Ubuntu just because of the extra layer of work mentioned above.

Canonical are also fairly actively involved in security fixes and among those brought in to the various security embargoes. They usually ship packages the same day embargoes drop.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#370

Post by ryanmjacobs » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

Well this sucks... IBM/RedHat is really shooting themselves in the foot here. Stable CentOS versions have always been my go-to for VPS services. Install it once and you're good -- plus no Ubuntu snap stuff... I have 5+ CentOS 8 installs and I was really banking on the LTS timeline. I wish they would have kept that going alongside their CentOS 7 support.

I'm debating whether or not to downgrade to CentOS 7 to at least keep going until 2024, instead of 2021 with CentOS 8.

Hopefully, some other player steps up and creates a similar offering.

Also, I've been irked lately about them deprecating virt-manager and pushing podman. I don't mind alternatives, just keep the feature parity when you switch. Cockpit is fairly limited compared to virt-manager.