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

Centos.rip

centos.rip

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: Centos.rip

#91

Post by curt15 »

rntksi wrote: post #64

I've had to argue a lot of time at work on the merit of running a Debian system. Everyone coming in has always been keen on just getting CentOS up for a server. Outside vendors also just tell me: "we need CentOS X for this", and I've never understood the reason for that. Having run both systems, I know that Debian is much more solid. Sometimes the argument even comes down to: "Oh but when I search online for guides,…

Debian is really unique in that does not totally rely on a single corporation's largess like Fedora (Red Hat), CentOS (Red Hat), or OpenSUSE (SUSE). Being a worldwide, community-run project, it has multiple stakeholders and no single point of failure.

Re: Centos.rip

#92

Post by mxuribe »

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for IBM to "nudge" (force?) RedHat to roll out a new distro named Red Hat Universal Blue Linux or RHUB Linux...Just so that i can use loads of awful Dad jokes related to linux and Rube Goldberg devices. (Disclaimer: I love me some linux tons, but love me some Dad jokes even more.)

Re: Centos.rip

#93

Post by silentsysadmin »

Changing EoL to 2021 is absolutely unacceptable!

CentOS impressed me so much in the years I've been using it that I wanted to grab a RHCSE and start recommending subscriptions to my clients.

After pulling the rug out from under my feet I will no longer be interested in recommending anything under the Red Hat brand. We will migrate to another solution for our internal systems and not look back.

Re: Centos.rip

#94

Post by _ph_ »

kklimonda wrote: post #78
_ph_ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that CentOS was killed? It will be available and actively maintained.

Just because CentOS Stream has "CentOS" in its name does not mean it's the same thing - CentOS, as is known currently, will effectively stop existing once CentOS7 is no longer supported (not to mention CentOS8 will not even be supported for previously announced period).

Yes, CentOS as a precise RH clone will be history, but there is still RH. CentOS will still be close to the next RH release and sufficiently behind Fedora to be stable by itself. So a good choice for many, who want a bit more current software than Red Hat but want to be more conservative than to go with Fedora. For many users an actual improvement. For those who want Red Hat, they should use Red Hat or one of its clones.

Re: Centos.rip

#95

Post by stonedeaf »

mwcampbell wrote: post #71

This strikes me as an infantile response to a sensible business move. We need to grow up, realize that the free lunch is over, and pay for what we value. And developers, including large companies, need to stop coddling us by offering us their best work for free. Edit: "We" includes me; I should pay for more software too (not that I use any commercial software illegally; I only mean choosing paid products over free on…

The biggest issue here is that they've went back on supporting till 2029 and given folks till this time next year to have a replacement solution in place.

I'm all for supporting the continuation of services I enjoy and make use of, but this is a huge stab in the back.

Most people will probably be fine with Stream, but it's not what CentOS users signed up for.

Re: Centos.rip

#96

Post by ddevault »

mhd wrote: post #28
ddevault wrote: post #17

I would advise anyone who's using this as an opportunity to move on to greener pastures in terms of distributions to consider Alpine Linux: https://alpinelinux.org SourceHut runs entirely on Alpine, as do my personal workstations. It is extremely reliable, stable, and robust; maintainable over long periods of time with minimal effort; and small and simple enough to be easily understood by everyone responsible for its…

I mostly hear Alpine in the context of either embedded systems or tiny docker images. I'm not even that worried about the server, but one of the neat things about CentOS was that I could run the same or a related (Fedora) system on my dev machine, too. So I'd be interested in reading more about your experience with it as a workstation system. Do you use this as a main development machine or "just" for testing server…

I use it as my main development workstation as well. It should be stated that I use a fairly minimal workstation setup, however - I use sway, a web browser, and a terminal emulator, and that's it for graphical software on the typical day.

Re: Centos.rip

#97

Post by ddevault »

kklimonda wrote: post #55
ddevault wrote: post #17

I would advise anyone who's using this as an opportunity to move on to greener pastures in terms of distributions to consider Alpine Linux: https://alpinelinux.org SourceHut runs entirely on Alpine, as do my personal workstations. It is extremely reliable, stable, and robust; maintainable over long periods of time with minimal effort; and small and simple enough to be easily understood by everyone responsible for its…

Alpine is still linked against musl and not glibc, right? That is a rather large departure, and potentially more problematic than small package repository (usually the smaller repository, the easier it is to package your own stuff from scratch - I assume it beats rpm and deb at that).

Yes, but what of it? musl is POSIX compatible and almost all software works fine with it. It's simpler, easier to debug, and more reliable, and that easily outweighs the 30 seconds I have to spend patching the odd package with glibcisms.

Re: Centos.rip

#98

Post by jankotek »

mwcampbell wrote: post #71

This strikes me as an infantile response to a sensible business move. We need to grow up, realize that the free lunch is over, and pay for what we value. And developers, including large companies, need to stop coddling us by offering us their best work for free. Edit: "We" includes me; I should pay for more software too (not that I use any commercial software illegally; I only mean choosing paid products over free on…

"free lunch" is just untrue. Opensource and GPL does not work this way.

Also Redhat just cut support on one of its projects. Their business model is build on their reputation and long term support. Not best long term move.

Re: Centos.rip

#99

Post by ddevault »

anonunivgrad wrote: post #30
ddevault wrote: post #17

I would advise anyone who's using this as an opportunity to move on to greener pastures in terms of distributions to consider Alpine Linux: https://alpinelinux.org SourceHut runs entirely on Alpine, as do my personal workstations. It is extremely reliable, stable, and robust; maintainable over long periods of time with minimal effort; and small and simple enough to be easily understood by everyone responsible for its…

Two totally different markets. RHEL (and its free clone, CentOS, rip) are for regulated industries or anyone who values extreme stability over any newness. You can turn updates on and feel as safe as you can be against known exploits while at the same time feeling as confident as you can that your stuff won’t break. Once or twice a decade, you port to a new version and then go back to not thinking about it too much.

I feel confident about this with Alpine Linux. It doesn't have this sense of newness and bleeding edge. It is extremely stable and I have run upgrades on it for years without even a single issue. They release twice annually and the upgrade process is almost trivial. Keeping up with it is easy and a good practice for any organization.

Re: Centos.rip

#100

Post by macksd »

skrebbel wrote: post #47

Not knowing much about Linux distros, can anyone explain the popularity of CentOS to me? I mean, having used it only a few times, my impression of CentOS is "a Linux with lots of horribly outdated software, in the name of compatibility and well-testedness". Eg when I used it last, the PHP version it shipped with was 8 years old. Now, I understand the appeal of that to certain super risk averse enterprises who value s…

>> I think I understand RHEL and I think I understand Fedora, but I never got the appeal of CentOS.

A lot of the appeal of RHEL is being the de facto industry standard. CentOS also gives you that, just without the support contract, which many organizations just replace with their own capable admins. People may want the stability but don't otherwise benefit from the pricing model.

What actually never made sense to me was Red Hat officially embracing the CentOS project. A free clone will inevitably happen because that's exactly what the GPL intended. Red Hat has made lots of money by adding incremental work to a large body of other people's work. They make their money delivering value to their customers who do value faster patches and support, but the source code must remain free for everyone else. I'm not really sure what anyone, Red Hat or the community, got out of CentOS current "official" status.

Post reply on HN