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

531–540 of 642 posts

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#531

Post by apecat »

Thaxll wrote: post #432
apecat wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh cool. As for CloudLinux, "not free" probably scale for some hosting environments, including non-managed cloud instances. 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-fashio…

I trust Canonical more than Debian for security fixes. Canonical has a dedicated security team.

So does Debian https://security-team.debian.org

I claim no deep expertise on this, and I assume Canonical has more money to throw at this. Or are there contributions to Debian security in the form of paid personnel?

This is actually quite interesting to me, anyone with real knowledge of the subject is welcome to interject.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#532

Post by newen »

jlgaddis wrote: post #527
Communitivity wrote: post #460

It does not matter if nightlies are more stable than they used to be. It does not matter if nightlies never crash. If you work in an industry or corporation that is highly security conscious, i.e. that prizes risk mitigation over using the cutting edge or getting to market first above all else, then you won't be able to use nightlies. Security policy will dictate that you use use a stable versioned release, that the…

> If you work in an industry or corporation that is highly security conscious, i.e. that prizes risk mitigation over using the cutting edge or getting to market first above all else, then you won't be able to use nightlies. > Security policy will dictate that you use use a stable versioned release, that the release be vetted through scripts/STIGs, and that the release be installed by Security+ certified and blessed a…

Pretty sure it did. CentOS is used by the government for classified areas. Though it might be phased out now after this change.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#533

Post by pjmlp »

CydeWeys wrote: post #434
chasil wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle already has a clone that performs an in-place conversion of an installed CentOS 7 system. There is a page describing the conversion: https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/ They have a shell script to convert a CentOS install to Oracle Linux, so you can buy support if you want. The converter only works with versions 5, 6, and 7. It does not work with CentOS 8. It would be nice if that could get updated.

There are two types of people: People who haven't used Oracle yet, and people who will never use it again. And I'll forever hate them for what they did to Java (and in setting the precedent that APIs can be copyrighted).

What have they done, lets see:

- Brought MaximeVM of research and creating GraalVM

- In the process of adding value types to Java

- In the process of adding support for explicit SIMD in Java

- In the process of adding co-routines to Java

- Added type inference support

- Added pattern matching

- Added record types

- Integrated J/Rockit support for JIT caches

- Made Flight Recorder available in OpenJDK

- In the process of making AOT compilation work, instead of requiring you to fork money for a JDK with AOT compiler like Sun used to do

- Integrated almost pauseless GC with support for TB sized heaps

- Long term roadmap to replace C++ with Java on the JDK, as yet another proof of Java capabilities

- In the process of having a JNI replacement

And plenty more, https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/0

I hope they squash Android Java, Google had the opportunity to buy Sun after screwing them up.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#534

Post by apecat »

InvaderFizz wrote: post #254
apecat wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@syshum, yes, but it's not exacly RHEL, and it's not distributed outside AWS https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25347232 But the point is indeed that there are resources and infrastructure, so one might be hopeful that there will be a good outcome. One possible outcome would be increased demand and resources for Debian and/or Ubuntu and I definitely wouldn't mind that (five years of support isn't all that much in I…

> @syshum, yes, but it's not exacly RHEL, and it's not distributed outside AWS On the first point you are correct. It's not exactly RHEL7. On the second point, Amazon provides images for running on prem[0]. We run a lot of dev AmazonLinux2 VMs on prem so that the local computing environment matches the deployed EC2 environment. 0: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/amazon-l...

@invaderFizz: oh, this is useful to me, thanks!

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#535

Post by pjmlp »

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…

Just wait when Mark Shuttleworth decides not to sponsor the project any longer.

Ubuntu followed Red-Hat's footsteps away from desktop into the server room, as there is no money to be done there, and it will follow it still, if there is still not enough money on the server.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#536

Post by fogihujy »

apecat wrote: post #140
awill wrote: post #109

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…

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…

I've heard the idea being mentioned from several sources. My guess is that unless Oracle does some kind of magic an manages to get anyone to trust them, then we'll see a new community project to replace CentOS very soon.

Either that, or Debian's user-base will grow a lot within the next few months. :)

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#537

Post by jlgaddis »

bubblethink wrote: post #243

This is quite logical and expected from RH's standpoint. The aberration was them acquiring CentOS in the first place. In the long run, I expect everyone to migrate to Ubuntu or Debain slowly. This has been happening anyway. I don't think people will trust a new CentOS-like project easily should one pop up. Thanks, for all the fish, CentOS. The city of Tuttle, Oklahoma is grateful.

> Thanks, for all the fish, CentOS. The city of Tuttle, Oklahoma is grateful.

Oh man, I had completely forgotten about that (although I suspect most people have by now)... since reading your comment, though, I have been sitting here giggling like a little kid just thinking about it. Thank you!

--

For anyone who reads this and doesn't understand the reference to Tuttle, Oklahoma, well, go seek out the answer and prepare to be entertained, my friend!

--

UPDATE: Actually, I'll save you some trouble, since I decided to go re-read all the details again myself:

Start here, with a story from The Register that summarizes what happened: https://www.theregister.com/2006/03/24/tuttle_centos/

Afterwards, you'll almost certainly want to read the entire e-mail thread yourself. Fortunately, the Internet Archive has us covered: https://web.archive.org/web/20060326091856/https://www.cento...

Finally, thank bubblethink (with an extra Internet point, of course) for reminding us all of this incident!

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#538

Post by mbreese »

lokedhs wrote: post #509
thayne wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Centos was always a free alternative to Redhat. I and many other people used it because it was a way to get the benefits of Redhat without paying for it. 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 re…

I’m in the same situation, and I recently had started to plan on upgrading a small HPC cluster from CentOS 7. Before today, I had planned on CentOS 8.

Now? “¯\_(ツ)_/¯“ Probably Debian.

I’ve always used CentOS for clusters, but part of the reason for that is that there are some research packages that support RPM installation, but not deb. At least this gas historically been the case.

If a large amount (maybe even a majority) of users have to switch away from CentOS and RPM packaging, I think we’ll see an acceleration away from RPM as a default option.

So, in that way, I think we do matter, but just not on the balance sheet.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#539

Post by toyg »

dralley wrote: post #411
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…

That is not how the GPL works. The GPL only entitles you to the source code of software for which you have been provided binaries. If the software has not been provided to you in binary form, you have no claim to the source. This is why the cloud providers can get away with custom in-house patches to the Linux kernel.

Yep, this is actually one of those things Stallman has been saying for decades and people like to ignore: the GPL doesn’t mean all code must be in the public domain, only that users of a given program should be able to modify it. There are a number of ways to allow for that while still keeping distribution restricted.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#540

Post by toyg »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #423
toyg wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of cloning effort tend to live in contractual grey areas. Would that community (of people who got together to avoid paying for licenses) be ready to pay to defend developers from expensive lawsuits filed by one of the wealthiest corporates on the planet? Or rather, would developers in charge of such projects believe that? An acqui-hire with fuck-you money on one side, vs years of pain and likely bankruptcy…

...the contractual grey area of assembling a software distribution of open-source software in keeping with the license of that software? What exactly are they going to have a lawsuit over?

There is always something, like Samba and whatnot - some build system you claim copyright to, or some utility with a different license etc etc. It doesn’t need to be a slam dunk, it doesn’t need to win at all, it just has to be enough to keep a lawsuit running for a year or so. The legal system can be used as a DDOS in many, many situations, even when the defendant is spotless.
Post reply on HN