501–510 of 642 posts
Seems like some folks are considering to create an alternative: https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/#com... https://join.slack.com/t/hpcng/shared_invite/zt-gy0st6mt-ijg...
Good luck, as it ain't that easy. Remember Whitebox Linux?
This is awful. It's proof of the downsides to the IBM acquisition, which I think we all knew was coming. 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. Why on earth didn't they make this switch starting with CentOS 9???? Let's not sugar coat this. They've betrayed their users. I personally run a CentOS 7 server (as…
> For my server I want a boring, stable OS, so I'm definitely not using Streams. Have you considered Ubuntu Server? "Being boring" and "having no vision" are frequent critiques of Ubuntu, which(as we probably all know) can be the highest possible compliment in some scenarios, like servers. They also have pretty decent LTS.
This is awful. It's proof of the downsides to the IBM acquisition, which I think we all knew was coming. 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. Why on earth didn't they make this switch starting with CentOS 9???? Let's not sugar coat this. They've betrayed their users. I personally run a CentOS 7 server (as…
>> 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…
You build software, you ship it on an OS so it works, cool, this makes sense (I assume you need hardware and VM support, not just VM).
Why would you accept additional risk on the OS if you can easily reduce the risk, and ultimate cost, by going with an OS that has vendor support written into the actual contract? RHEL is 11-13 years total, Windows is... I'm guessing my grandkids will be using some form of Windows 10. CentOS is, and always was a community "best effort", with some serious delays occasionally (not often, but it happened).
A RHEL server license starts at $349, I have to assume that's at least an order of magnitude (or two or three) less than the cost of your software based on the technologies involved (sounds enterprise-solutiony). In other words a rounding error overall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For my server I want a boring, stable OS, so I'm definitely not using Streams. Have you considered Ubuntu Server? "Being boring" and "having no vision" are frequent critiques of Ubuntu, which(as we probably all know) can be the highest possible compliment in some scenarios, like servers. They also have pretty decent LTS.
Debian has entered the chat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bundle of jinja2 templates for YAML files defining Kubernetes API resources. There's an accompanying application, Helm, which applies values to the templates and handles the interaction with the Kubernetes API.
Helm uses Golangs built-in template language which is definitely not jinja2 compatible.
Having a more "front runner" distro for RHEL (RedHat Enterprise) is great for RedHat. Since bugs will probably be caught in CentOS and don't end up in RHEL. This front runner role was actually intended for Fedora however Fedora contains way too much experimental changes for anyone to seriously try to run it on servers. I don't want to sound too "tin-foil headed" but I guess now that RedHat has hired the main CentOS d…
> People who use CentOS want a boring Linux distro like RHEL. They just don't want to pay for RHEL subscriptions. I use CentOS a lot for prototyping projects destined to be put on RHEL servers. I like it as a try-before-you-buy version of RHEL, and this change makes that use case a lot less useful.
The instructor told us if we wanted to try some of the things we were doing in class to experiment more, we could try it on CentOS. it was the practically the same. This was before Red Hat “ acquired” them.
This is awful. It's proof of the downsides to the IBM acquisition, which I think we all knew was coming. 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. Why on earth didn't they make this switch starting with CentOS 9???? Let's not sugar coat this. They've betrayed their users. I personally run a CentOS 7 server (as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're asking why someone who uses CentOS hasn't gone with Helm charts? That's like polar opposites of stability and bleeding edge.
I was curious what drove the decision to deploy that way. I was under the impression most new applications being developed today would choose a more modern deployment method. There’s a lot to maintain in a VM image like that, containers just seem easier to me. Helm chart or otherwise
I will argue that there is less maintenance when handling virtual machines images, because it uses less bandwidth and need less tooling around it comparing with container image based infrastructure.
But in general both are nothing more than the golden image concept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That in no way explains why they don't continue to have both. They're a business ... are you honestly and in good-faith actually confused about this outcome?
Red Hat didn't make CentOS they acquired it. This is very similar to a large corporation acquiring a smaller competitor, promising to continue supporting it, creating a new, different product using the brand, then dropping the original product.
This is a really smart more on their part to get people to stop doing precisely this, and getting them to pay money for RH. Pepople who are not willing to pay (me included) are now rightly annoyed, but we were never their customers in the first place, so we don't really matter.
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.