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

541–550 of 642 posts

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#541

Post by severino »

jnwatson wrote: post #521
zamalek wrote: post #496

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.

Dunno. I just spent an hour trying to figure out how to set the DNS server on an interface on Ubuntu Server 20.04. There's no ifconfig, /etc/resolv.conf is out, no nslookup, /etc/network/interfaces is completely out. It is like a completely new OS to me, and I've been hacking on UNIXes for 25 years now.

I'm not sure the things you find missing are Ubuntu's fault. For example, while it's true that there is no ifconfig by default in Ubuntu (it's provided by a package called net-tools), one can read this:

> In 2009, Red Hat decided to deprecate ifconfig as the default command line network interface management utility, because the “net-tools” package (which provides ifconfig) did not support InfiniBand addresses (commonly used interconnect in high-performance computing applications).

So, many of the things that make Ubuntu look like a new OS to you, were actually decisions made by RedHat years ago, and they will also be present in newer RHEL versions.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#542

Post by chaz6 »

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.

An easy way around this problem is to run the software in a docker container with a newer glibc.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#543

Post by dijit »

chaz6 wrote: post #542
p49k wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

An easy way around this problem is to run the software in a docker container with a newer glibc.

Docker "works" but has huge performance costs (disk IO) on CentOS7.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#544

Post by bzzzt »

pjmlp wrote: post #533
CydeWeys wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When your company software stack is turned inside-out by Oracle reps to look for unlicensed JVM's on penalty of really big fines (sorry, opportunities to buy more Oracle software) all those nice-to-have features don't seem to matter that much.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#545

Post by bayindirh »

pjmlp wrote: post #528
bayindirh wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a silent but relatively big user base of CentOS in HPC and scientific computing. ScientificLinux and CentOS rules all HPC clusters. Clusters are like enterprise servers. Big, monolithic, rarely upgraded. They're upgraded in one big-fell swoop and left to run. There'll be another clone of RHEL since HPC can't accept CentOS Stream as the alternative. The whole infra is too big to move to Debian too. So with tod…

I was at CERN when ScientificLinux was created, back then it was actually based in Red Hat, there was no CentOS.

We also used it a lot back in the grid days. :)

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#546

Post by INTPenis »

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…

I did try to deploy CentOS 8 on several occasions during 2020 but mostly found it was not ready for what I needed to do.

So I defaulted back to CentOS 7. Which I now realize was lucky.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#547

Post by bonzini »

wang_li wrote: post #379
bonzini wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Really? When I do a yum update on my rhel systems to get the latest updates from rhn, they never download the source code. Now that I think about it, I don't think RH has even sent me any kind of medium which is commonly used for interchange.

GPLv2 was written in 1991. GPLv3 changes the wording in Section 3(a) to "durable physical medium", but at the same time it gives other possibility including "Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge".

Everyone was doing network distribution of GPL software long before GPLv3 came out, effectively treating a download as a medium customarily used for software interchange. Not a physical one, but GPLv2 does not say anything about that.

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#548

Post by bayindirh »

pjmlp wrote: post #533
CydeWeys wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They've done all of them because they think it'll allow them to earn more money with less effort on the long run, not because of the sheer love of computer science and research.

Oracle creates cool tech in the legacy of Sun because it impresses the right people who can influence the decision makers.

To recap: "Hey, Oracle's these new toys are capable and fun to use. We can do much more with them. Can you buy these for us, engineers so we can be happy like children again?"

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#549

Post by apecat »

pnutjam wrote: post #428
apecat wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But LEAP is only supported for 36 months? https://en.opensuse.org/Lifetime That's pretty weak sauce even compared to the five years Debian and Ubuntu offer. And Debian actually supports all their packages, unlike Ubuntu which tricks people into installing unpatched garbage from 'universe'

Supported for "at least" 36 months. You can get extended support and it's usually quiet a bit more.

Do you know what kind of price range would that be?

Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream

#550

Post by [deleted] »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #266
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…

>> 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN