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

CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#111

Post by linsomniac »

yakattak wrote: post #13

My previous employer went all in on ditching their RHEL boxes for CentOS. I wonder how that change is treating them now. Given this change by Red Hat/IBM, was it wasted effort? I wonder if they’ll now switch back to RHEL.

I used to provide a dedicated server to the Fedora project, and configured it for them to use. The conversation went something like this: "I assume you would like RHEL on it?" "Yep." "Can you get us a license, so we can install it?" "Sure thing, not a problem." A few days later. "Can you just install CentOS?" This was quite a few years ago.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#112

Post by linsomniac »

CentOS has been a great project, I used to use the heck out of it. But one of the things I really like about Ubuntu is that their community and LTS releases are the Same. Exact. Thing. We know when we deploy something when we will have to get off it, and don't have to worry about unofficial maintainers.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#113

Post by ghaff »

INTPenis wrote: post #67
cheph wrote: post #42

The title is a bit misleading IMO. > What was the specific change? It seems that Red Hat said it would invest in Stream but not CentOS. CentoOS Stream is still CentOS to me. Better to say Red Hat will not invest in CentOS point releases, as that is a lot less confusing.

Yes I was looking for someone to see it from my view. At least I assume we are on the same page here. What I see here is Redhat optimizing the release cycle. Please correct me if I'm wrong or my english is bad but it seems to make a lot more sense from a development standpoint to have CentOS Stream than the overhead that was each CentOS release. And in that process they gain a sort of dev branch of RedHat that people…

>it seems to make a lot more sense from a development standpoint to have CentOS Stream

For many scenarios it does. It gives far more visibility into what's coming in future RHEL releases than a downstream rebuild of past point releases did. However, a lot of people are used to those backward looking point releases because "that's the way we've always done things."(tm)

I also imagine that many of the same people think nothing of using cloud platforms and services that are getting changed many times a day--but those changes are invisible for the most part so it doesn't bother them.

I'm not sure beta test is all that meaningful a term in a CI/CD world. Yes, there is final acceptance testing for official releases but a lot of software we use is basically changing all the time.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#114

Post by ghaff »

jmclnx wrote: post #105

This comment concerns me: "The next version will not be like Stream 8. "We have said publicly this is not the way it's going to be. Stream 9 is going to show you that code flows from Fedora to CentOS Stream" To me, this indicates Stream will be rather close to Fedora. Right now Stream seems rather stable. But that tells me Stream will be a rolling release of Fedora. Do others read it that way ?

Currently, Fedora is mostly used to rebase (only) major RHEL releases. I read the statement as a desire to flow Fedora innovations into RHEL via CentOS Stream more incrementally.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#115

Post by simonh »

randmeerkat wrote: post #47
IgorPartola wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t untrue but it’s also an absolutist statement. There is a big difference between Canonical and Oracle, between Zappos (before Amazon bought them) and Walmart, between Starbucks and McDonalds. Your experience working for these will be vastly different. Your experience dealing with them will be also different. And some will behave closer to “good citizens” than others.

A company isn’t a “citizen”, it isn’t even a “person”. Also why do we even give credence to ideas such as good corporate “citizenship”? Thank you for not destroying the economy or societal fabric..? Way to be a good for profit entity that probably still isn’t raising wages or helping with the homeless crisis..? There should be strong laws and regulations that bind companies and jail their execs if they step out of li…

The people who own and run companies are citizens though, with all the rights and freedoms that come with that. The fact that they are exercising those as employers or employees should make no difference. In face we all take advantage of our rights as citizens while employed or employing people all the time. Fundamentally Capitalism is simply the exercise of basic property rights and individual freedoms.

As fro democracy there's no reason you should have any say in how these people exercise their freedoms under the law, beyond your say in government and the law. If you have a problem with anything they do, then that's a matter for the law and regulation, applied equally to everyone. An idealistic view I accept, but it's what we should be aiming for.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#116

Post by IgorPartola »

randmeerkat wrote: post #47
IgorPartola wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t untrue but it’s also an absolutist statement. There is a big difference between Canonical and Oracle, between Zappos (before Amazon bought them) and Walmart, between Starbucks and McDonalds. Your experience working for these will be vastly different. Your experience dealing with them will be also different. And some will behave closer to “good citizens” than others.

A company isn’t a “citizen”, it isn’t even a “person”. Also why do we even give credence to ideas such as good corporate “citizenship”? Thank you for not destroying the economy or societal fabric..? Way to be a good for profit entity that probably still isn’t raising wages or helping with the homeless crisis..? There should be strong laws and regulations that bind companies and jail their execs if they step out of li…

Relax. That’s why I put “good citizen” in quotes. They aren’t citizens but the term “good citizen” means acting in the best interest of society. I am not talking in any way about corporate personhood, just the idea that a company may do things that are a net positive or a net negative and some do more net positive things than net negative things.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#117

Post by kyuudou »

briffle wrote: post #87
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty confident there's a lot of charities / nonprofits set up as a money laundering and tax dodging scheme. I mean one of the richest families in NL have their money in a bank that is part of a charity.

Ikea is officially a non-profit, and pays a tax rate of 3.5% because of it https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-...

Technically, Ikea is a Swedish multinational conglomerate whose retail locations are partly associated with a Dutch non-profit "Stichting_INGKA_Foundation" founded by Ikea's founder.

Essentially, Ikea is profitable because it utilizes a tax-avoidance strategy involving the use of a non-profit and so your comment is in my opinion basically true and they are "cheating" a bit. A pretty slick cheat, though.

Also, thank you for shining a light on this as I was ignorant of the whole thing.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#118

Post by IgorPartola »

akudha wrote: post #63
IgorPartola wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t untrue but it’s also an absolutist statement. There is a big difference between Canonical and Oracle, between Zappos (before Amazon bought them) and Walmart, between Starbucks and McDonalds. Your experience working for these will be vastly different. Your experience dealing with them will be also different. And some will behave closer to “good citizens” than others.

That is like saying robbery is better than murder. Yes, it is true that Canonical is better than Oracle, but they are all businesses in the end. I've had a dozen jobs so far, some were better than others, even fun. But the one common thread in all of those jobs is - none of them gave a shit about me, however hard/smart I worked for them. I've experienced the same as a paying customer. Customers, employees, partners e…

No it isn’t. You are using reductionist logic. Because some corporations will sell out their employees and customers under specific circumstances must mean that all of them are doing it all the time, right?

Robbery and murder have no upsides to a society. Organized labor to create something bigger than a single person can build is foundation of society. You can argue which system of organization is better (government owns and dictates everything like communism, corporations and government own and some specific categories of things and dictate what’s in their purview like capitalism, the royalty and nobility own and dictate everything like monarchy, or no organized labor exists like anarchy). But the reality is that we as a species tend to organize into tribes and work in groups and whether you call those tribes/groups corporations, government work forces, peasantry, guilds is just about what trade offs you want to make.

I will be really impressed if you can show a proof that a corporation is like murder.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#119

Post by IgorPartola »

lumost wrote: post #71
IgorPartola wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t untrue but it’s also an absolutist statement. There is a big difference between Canonical and Oracle, between Zappos (before Amazon bought them) and Walmart, between Starbucks and McDonalds. Your experience working for these will be vastly different. Your experience dealing with them will be also different. And some will behave closer to “good citizens” than others.

The mistake people often make is mistaking a "fun" or "caring" atmosphere and demeanor of the company and assuming that that actually means the company cares about "fun" or cares for their employees. If there is anything that poses a risk to the company, interferes with an employees ability to serve the company, or in any way reduces productivity... there will be no difference between canonical and oracle or even can…

So to you there is no difference working for McDonalds or Canonical or Oracle? And what is your solution? Work for the government? Everyone should work on the family farm because families always treat their members better than anyone else and nobody gets exploited? Do not work at all?

Again, this is like saying that if you push a person hard enough they will commit violence which immediately implies that all people are violent criminals. It’s simply not how that works, and equating all current and past behavior to what someone is capable of is silly.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#120

Post by IgorPartola »

bartread wrote: post #62
IgorPartola wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t untrue but it’s also an absolutist statement. There is a big difference between Canonical and Oracle, between Zappos (before Amazon bought them) and Walmart, between Starbucks and McDonalds. Your experience working for these will be vastly different. Your experience dealing with them will be also different. And some will behave closer to “good citizens” than others.

> There is a big difference between Canonical and Oracle, between Zappos (before Amazon bought them) and Walmart Right up to the moment where there isn't. Some companies have great values, a great culture, an inspiring mission and they'll be relatively consistent in maintaining these things for quite extended periods of time: years, sometimes even decades. That's really easy to do during the good times: when you're h…

Right. A person is good and moral until they are starving. Then thing change a lot. The person may steal, rob, even murder. Therefore all people are murderers and we should get rid of them. QED.

I am not saying businesses should have a carte blanche to do what they want. Far from it. But in the sense that some corporations tend to behave better than others, just like some individual people tend to behave better than others, we should recognize that it is better to push all to behave better than to get rid of all of them on the grounds that the worst ones are beyond redemption.

Post reply on HN