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

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Centos.rip

#101

Post by ktm5j »

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 I mean, having used it only a few times, my impression of CentOS is "a Linux with lots of horribly outdated software, in the name of compatibility and well-testedness".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…

Stability. The software in CentOS is not the newest, but has been tested thoroughly.

Fedora is cutting edge, basically the testing release for the RHEL family. What is Fedora today will eventually become a RHEL/CentOS release down the road.

CentOS and RHEL are identical, but RHEL comes with support.

Re: Centos.rip

#102

Post by alphager »

macksd wrote: post #100
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 I mean, having used it only a few times, my impression of CentOS is "a Linux with lots of horribly outdated software, in the name of compatibility and well-testedness".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…

If you try out CentOs and it doesn't work, there's a chance you try Suse, Ubuntu, Arch etc.

If you try CentOS and it does work, there's a chance you grow large enough to be able to pay for Redhat.

CentOS was inevitable, might as well go for scenario 2 than 1.

Re: Centos.rip

#103

Post by dralley »

_ph_ wrote: post #36
alfyboy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, wow. I'm running CentOS 8 on my home server. Anyone have any recomendations for a good, stable, home server OS?

Depending what exactly you want, CentOS is still a great choice, especially if you are also using the machine for more than set serving jobs. My understanding is, that CentOS will be exactly in the middle ground between Fedora and Red Hat. So it will be ahead of Red Hat a bit, which is a good thing if you want more current software versions. But not quite as cutting edge as Fedora. Personally, I am fully on Fedora fo…

>My understanding is, that CentOS will be exactly in the middle ground between Fedora and Red Hat.

Not "exactly the middle ground", so much as

Fedora ---------------------------------------->> CentOS Stream -->> RHEL

At any given time CentOS Stream is only a couple months ahead of RHEL, that is not remotely true for Fedora.

Re: Centos.rip

#104

Post by ofrzeta »

bamboozled wrote: post #73
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…

“my impression of CentOS is "a Linux with lots of horribly outdated software” It is and it’s the secret reason Docker and Containers became so popular. I’ve been a systems administrator for sometime now. At some point developers wanted to run Python 3 on CentOS 6 and here we are. It allowed the systems administrators to let the developers go wild in their own sandbox and keep the systems “pristine”.

There are several third-party repos to install up to date software on CentOS.

Re: Centos.rip

#105

Post by macksd »

alphager wrote: post #102
macksd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

If you try out CentOs and it doesn't work, there's a chance you try Suse, Ubuntu, Arch etc. If you try CentOS and it does work, there's a chance you grow large enough to be able to pay for Redhat. CentOS was inevitable, might as well go for scenario 2 than 1.

Makes sense. But what changed in practice that made scenario 2 more likely?

Re: Centos.rip

#106

Post by qalmakka »

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,…

I personally hate Debian because of APT and the fact that it tends to do way too many things behind your back, things that sometimes backfire horrendously as soon as you stray too much from the path Debian dug (Ubuntu is the best example of how APT can self implode as soon as you start adding weird repositories and the scripts that keep Debian afloat start breaking). I've had to recover way too many Ubuntu installs to tolerate using APT any longer (in its defense, I understand it was designed by Debian, for Debian, and often Ubuntu abuses and misunderstands it), and while YUM/DNF aren't that much better, they're miles ahead APT in reliability and solidity, especially since RPM is arguably more reliable than DPKG, IMHO.

You may well say that Arch Linux and the like, compared to Debian-based distributions, basically leave you in the middle of nowhere with just a knife and a rope, but at least you know what you signed for. Relying on fancy shmancy automatic configuration systems is often a recipe for disaster, especially if you plan to stray a lot from the defaults, because it's guaranteed you won't have any idea of what's happening when everything has turned south.

For these and other reasons,I think that systems like BSDs are much, much more pleasant to use than Debian and Red Hat, but I understand why they might not be the right choice for everyone. Still, I can't but recommend everyone to give a shot at FreeBSD if your needs allow it.

Re: Centos.rip

#107

Post by qalmakka »

idclip wrote: post #35
alfyboy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, wow. I'm running CentOS 8 on my home server. Anyone have any recomendations for a good, stable, home server OS?

arch or freebsd. Ubuntu lts/debian depends on ur packages. Freebsd isnt linux, but is great server OS.

I second this. FreeBSD is rock solid and extremely reliable (I have systems that are running on very old hardware and little memory, and still work fine). Arch can also pretty stable, if you actually know what you're doing and you're not doing anything serious with your server.

Re: Centos.rip

#108

Post by mhd »

edsemail123 wrote: post #70
CydeWeys wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical problems aren't the primary reason people recommend against using Oracle, it's the extortion that happens further down the road once they've got you locked in. And in the case of Oracle Linux, that seems to be almost a certainty at some point.

Same scenario as getting ingested by IBM after all

I've always saw it as IBM = rabid salesmen, Oracle = rabid lawyers.

Re: Centos.rip

#109

Post by angelbar »

macksd wrote: post #105
alphager wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you try out CentOs and it doesn't work, there's a chance you try Suse, Ubuntu, Arch etc. If you try CentOS and it does work, there's a chance you grow large enough to be able to pay for Redhat. CentOS was inevitable, might as well go for scenario 2 than 1.

Makes sense. But what changed in practice that made scenario 2 more likely?

mostly... Official support

Re: Centos.rip

#110

Post by helen___keller »

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…

While I'm interested in Alpine and will take a look at it, I think it's in a different class than CentOS. A look at the release schedule[0] suggests that major versions are supported for 2 years. In contrast, major releases of CentOS historically were supported for a stunning 10 years (until yesterdays' announcement, which moved the support window for CentOS 8 from 2029 to 2021). I've worked with companies that had been running legacy CentOS 6 boxes for over half a decade, and from my perspective the longevity was incredibly valuable for that kind of business.

[0] https://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Alpine_Linux:Releases

Post reply on HN