131–140 of 144 posts
That was a good laugh, thank you. Now it's time to go back at freaking out.
Freaking out over what? CentOS stopped being a production OS as soon as "I've Been Moved" ingested it...were you just not paying attention? ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not experienced any of these issues. Do you have an example of a reproducible bug in apt involving third-party repositories? And how is RPM more reliable than DPKG? I have not seen either of them exhibit what I would call reliability issues (i.e. crashes)
I have not seen crashes, but I often saw corrupted DPKG databases. This is very rare if you stick to upstream repositories, but it gets more serious when you start mixing third-party repositories in (i.e. I saw people replacing GCC with newer versions from outside repositories, and due to the sheer amount of stuff depending from it, doing a dist-upgrade required purging an immense amount of packages). I must admit it…
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,…
The one big issue with Debian is installing a package results in the service starting immediately. On CentOS and other distros this is not the case and the user has to start the service after the installation. I prefer the latter behavior as not everything I install is going to be a 24/7 service. I'd prefer not to mask some service because stopping and disabling leads to the service randomly starting after a package…
This should really be called RIP RedHat tbh. They've just shot themselves in both feet.
I disagree, Redhat is not going anywhere anytime soon. FOSS is a funny thing because people seem to get more upset about things they were handed for free than things they pay for. Why should your entire *aaS stack be composed of free software of which you make money off of? How much money did anyone reading this donate to CentOS when they were separate from Redhat? Redhat bought the CentOS team because their own comm…
The writing's been on the wall ever since IBM acquired RedHat, not to mention the fact that the Linux world is otherwise converging on Debian-derived distros. I personally hope the Linux world converges. There are too many needless distributions whose only major difference is branding and a few file locations and other minor quibbling choices. There is absolutely no value in having both a Debian and RedHat/CentOS in…
NixOS seems to be taking off, Alpine is most used in containers but is great on bare metal, Arch Linux remains a pillar of the wider community, Void is still going strong. Debian is excellent, but it's not the world.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not seen crashes, but I often saw corrupted DPKG databases. This is very rare if you stick to upstream repositories, but it gets more serious when you start mixing third-party repositories in (i.e. I saw people replacing GCC with newer versions from outside repositories, and due to the sheer amount of stuff depending from it, doing a dist-upgrade required purging an immense amount of packages). I must admit it…
This doesn't seem related to apt vs yum, rpm etc. but more to replacing essential dependencies by third-party versions. What happens if one uses the same kind of hacks on CentOS? Does it handle these better?
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 have a few personal prod machines (my home router, a few personal website servers) that I need to run and I don't need support for them, and I can't afford a couple grand a year to pay for them nor would I. I'd just use something else.
That said CentOS Stream will likely be fine for me. I think RH bungled the news badly, but overall Cent is still pretty much fine. It's going to be way, way more stable than Fedora, and even Fedora wouldn't be all that bad in prod (I know because like a crazy man, I run Fedora in prod sometimes when I need fresh packages). Personally, I'm mostly upset about how this went down, not so much the outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could pull the same trick that CentOS pulled: check-out all the sources, replace all the logos and trademarks and rebuild. I honestly hope this is what's going to happen.
The original CentOS founder already announced his intention to do exactly that. I believe it's going to land here: https://github.com/hpcng/rocky . The thread about the CentOS Stream announcement yesterday had references to other efforts too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 clo…
That's the gripe. We were using one of its clones.