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

Rocky Linux 9.0

rockylinux.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 178 posts

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#41

Post by freedomben »

jbverschoor wrote: post #35
freedomben wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I'm a former Red Hat employee, but only speak for myself. I'm also going to speak very frankly. You got it. From the customer side support from them is cheaper than Red Hat's (sometimes much cheaper). From the supplier side, they don't have to bear much (or any) of the cost of development (beyond infra hosting and re-branding), so they can beat Red Hat's price very easily. I personally find that gross and…

and RH doesn't have to bear much of the cost of the development of Linux, GNU, and many other products. This is the spirit of OS.. If you think that's unethical, you should find another employer ;) edit: ah.. former employee.. so that part was already done :)

> RH doesn't have to bear much of the cost of the development of Linux, GNU, and many other products.

I disagree. RH is one of the top contributors to many of the major projects that make up the distro. Also the process of building/maintaining a distro is itself enormous. The 3rd parties have none of that expense so they can undercut the cost easily. In the end it hurts the whole ecosystem, while benefiting a select few.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#42

Post by freedomben »

bubblethink wrote: post #13
5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #11

Note that AlmaLinux released 9.0 about 40 days ago. They're also significantly faster with releasing minor updates (including releases like 8.6). On top of that, I like their attitude a lot more compared to what I've seen from Rocky's developers (regarding community interactions and such stuff). https://lwn.net/Articles/896438/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlmaLinux#Releases

They are both new. So, this may be a one time thing due to tooling changes or whatever. Too early to jump to conclusions.

You're not wrong, but CentOS (from inception) has always been really slow to release. When RHEL 7 dropped it took months to get the first CentOS build. CentOS having the same found, it isn't terribly surprising to me to see them be a little slower. When Alma launched, speed of updates was a specific goal of theirs because CentOS had been so painful in that area.

Most of the time I think it's fine. Mainly it hurts when there are security updates you need.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#43

Post by js4ever »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #33
freedomben wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I'm a former Red Hat employee, but only speak for myself. I'm also going to speak very frankly. You got it. From the customer side support from them is cheaper than Red Hat's (sometimes much cheaper). From the supplier side, they don't have to bear much (or any) of the cost of development (beyond infra hosting and re-branding), so they can beat Red Hat's price very easily. I personally find that gross and…

I'd say it's a two-sided sword. There's no question RH employs/founds large parts of Linux development, with only Suse being remotely as involved (maybe historically). OTOH, RH has pushed "innovations" such as systemd purely in their own interest, fragmenting a once-strong and user-centric F/OSS Unix community also including the BSDs into a Linux-only cloud slavedom. Plus, it was IBM/RH who cancelled the CentOS roadm…

They also created quay.io and fragmented docker global public repo by asking sponsored FOSS project to publish ONLY on quay. I really dislike redhat and won't touch anything related with them. I really don't understand why companies would pay thousands per server for support. I'm working with Linux systems since 2 decades and never needed to pay a cent in licenses or support.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#44

Post by gh02t »

freedomben wrote: post #38
tannhaeuser wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's a two-sided sword. There's no question RH employs/founds large parts of Linux development, with only Suse being remotely as involved (maybe historically). OTOH, RH has pushed "innovations" such as systemd purely in their own interest, fragmenting a once-strong and user-centric F/OSS Unix community also including the BSDs into a Linux-only cloud slavedom. Plus, it was IBM/RH who cancelled the CentOS roadm…

IBM had nothing to do with the CentOS decision. It was long time Red Hat people who made the decision. I don't agree with everything about the decision, but I don't think it's as bad as most people say it is[1]. You are definitely right that RH has pushed things in their own interest, but if those things don't offer value to the broader community, then the community won't adopt them. Red Hat can't force Debian or Ubu…

While I agree with you, it is fair to say RH has an unusual amount of leverage with respect to forcing things. They directly control a lot of big ticket projects, and have powerful leadership positions in others. They can coordinate major changes across the board and the momentum they can throw behind some decisions can certainly exert a LOT of pressure. This isn't necessarily a bad thing though - as you note it can be good to have a leader, but it's also something that can be detrimental too.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#45

Post by js4ever »

freedomben wrote: post #18
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #16

What's the thought process behind buying commercial support for a free, binary-compatible RHEL clone, instead of just paying for Red Hat support? Is the calculation that the once-in-a-blue-moon call to a commercial Rocky Linux support vendor when your server catches fire would still be cheaper than the cost of a normal RHEL license?

Disclaimer: I'm a former Red Hat employee, but only speak for myself. I'm also going to speak very frankly. You got it. From the customer side support from them is cheaper than Red Hat's (sometimes much cheaper). From the supplier side, they don't have to bear much (or any) of the cost of development (beyond infra hosting and re-branding), so they can beat Red Hat's price very easily. I personally find that gross and…

What I find gross and unethical is your attitude, it's open source or not? If yes don't be shocked when someone is reusing your code legally.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#46

Post by ch_123 »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #16

What's the thought process behind buying commercial support for a free, binary-compatible RHEL clone, instead of just paying for Red Hat support? Is the calculation that the once-in-a-blue-moon call to a commercial Rocky Linux support vendor when your server catches fire would still be cheaper than the cost of a normal RHEL license?

I've often seen internal IT/ops departments build their own packages for CentOS (pre Stream days) and do their own support. It's not the right call for every organization, but in that case, the Red Hat support does little.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#47

Post by bombcar »

freedomben wrote: post #18
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #16

What's the thought process behind buying commercial support for a free, binary-compatible RHEL clone, instead of just paying for Red Hat support? Is the calculation that the once-in-a-blue-moon call to a commercial Rocky Linux support vendor when your server catches fire would still be cheaper than the cost of a normal RHEL license?

Disclaimer: I'm a former Red Hat employee, but only speak for myself. I'm also going to speak very frankly. You got it. From the customer side support from them is cheaper than Red Hat's (sometimes much cheaper). From the supplier side, they don't have to bear much (or any) of the cost of development (beyond infra hosting and re-branding), so they can beat Red Hat's price very easily. I personally find that gross and…

Unethical would be if the companies selling the support then turn around and use their (one) Red Hat license whenever there's a real difficult problem.

But the vast majority of "support" for Linux isn't engineer-level, it's likely config and setup. Which is where both Red Hat and others try to make their money.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#48

Post by harha »

freedomben wrote: post #18
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #16

What's the thought process behind buying commercial support for a free, binary-compatible RHEL clone, instead of just paying for Red Hat support? Is the calculation that the once-in-a-blue-moon call to a commercial Rocky Linux support vendor when your server catches fire would still be cheaper than the cost of a normal RHEL license?

Disclaimer: I'm a former Red Hat employee, but only speak for myself. I'm also going to speak very frankly. You got it. From the customer side support from them is cheaper than Red Hat's (sometimes much cheaper). From the supplier side, they don't have to bear much (or any) of the cost of development (beyond infra hosting and re-branding), so they can beat Red Hat's price very easily. I personally find that gross and…

Out of curiosity, what sort of problems would customers typically run into?

My very naive understanding is that it’s just the OS and then only even a distribution (just to emphasize- very naive), what would they need apart from some networking and to run some software on top that needs so much support?

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#49

Post by nightfly »

harha wrote: post #48
freedomben wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I'm a former Red Hat employee, but only speak for myself. I'm also going to speak very frankly. You got it. From the customer side support from them is cheaper than Red Hat's (sometimes much cheaper). From the supplier side, they don't have to bear much (or any) of the cost of development (beyond infra hosting and re-branding), so they can beat Red Hat's price very easily. I personally find that gross and…

Out of curiosity, what sort of problems would customers typically run into? My very naive understanding is that it’s just the OS and then only even a distribution (just to emphasize- very naive), what would they need apart from some networking and to run some software on top that needs so much support?

Bugs.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#50

Post by orev »

I wish both Rocky and Alma well, as having multiple projects active keeps everyone on their toes.

Glad to see this release from Rocky!

Post reply on HN