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

71–80 of 178 posts

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#71

Post by gjs278 »

freedomben wrote: post #34
Dracophoenix wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your candor, but what makes this "gross and unethical" exactly? RedHat itself makes money by charging for support on work made by thousands of other coders outside the company (i.e. Linus et al). It's hypocritical if you ask me.

Good point, there's some hypocrisy at play here. I think overall though the "taking" done by RH is on the whole much less than most of the 3rd party support vendors. But my original language was a little harsher than I really feel. Red Hat funds an enormous amount of the development of projects (like the kernel), and makes Fedora one of the best (IMHO the best) distros for personal computing, so is one of the top con…

No post body was provided.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#72

Post by EwanToo »

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 tried to speak to Redhat about getting support for servers that didn't fit into their annual per-server subscription model. They didn't even reply to multiple emails.

Redhat sales are now firmly set in the IBM enterprise model. I'm sure it works for them, but it didn't work for us as a potential customer moving from Centos.

https://www.redhat.com/en/store/linux-platforms

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#73

Post by CamJN »

awill wrote: post #67
stonogo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amusing that you're presenting Alma as the veterans, seeing as how several founding members of Rocky were responsible for starting CentOS in the first place. But you're right, they're both RHEL clones, so it's only worth differentiating based on externalities. Rocky is backed by industry veterans and part of the 9.0 delay was so they could dogfood Peridot. Alma is backed by a web company who spent the majority o…

I don't quite understand "provisioning and longevity issues, Rocky is winning." As a user of CentOS looking for a replacement, Alma and Rocky should be 100% identical. The _only_ difference is delay after RHEL launches.

Alma is not as RHEL-compatible as rocky, they use subkeys for signing whereas rocky just uses their signing keys. This is enough that I can’t use alma for building my rpm’s using mock.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#74

Post by mroche »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #68
dralley wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing all the Debian and Ubuntu LTS and OpenSUSE Leap users would do, upgrade to a newer release. 10 years of unpaid support has always been an anomaly that no other LTS distro provided.

Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE Leap all support in-place upgrades between major versions. RedHat/CentOS do not.

Red Hat does support in-place upgrades for RHEL via Leapp, and the process around this has been improving. Granted I know in the past this process was... sub-optimal and restrictive. It is true that CentOS has not supported this. I am hoping we can achieve a "dnf system-upgrade" process on RHEL, but we'll see how that goes.

RHEL 7 -> RHEL 8: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterp...

RHEL 8 -> RHEL 9: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterp...

We still recommend having strong backup, rebuild, and automation strategies regardless. I personally would rather spin up a side system, ensure everything works, and nuke the original. That would apply to either test a in-place upgrade or a from-scratch build.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#75

Post by pmorici »

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 were pretty open that the 9 release too longer because they were building out a new build system and infrastructure to support it and future releases.

I’d also say what really counts is time to release critical security updates which they seem to be very on top of.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#76

Post by linuxftw »

bogwog wrote: post #27
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…

You're forgetting to mention the part where Rocky Linux is not just a rebrand of RHEL, it's a revival of CentOS, which IBM killed off in what's effectively a bait-and-switch, forcing customers to go through the painful/expensive migration process to another distro, or the less-painful but still expensive migration process to RHEL. Rocky Linux is a shining example of both a free market and the open source community wo…

Sadly, the decision to kill CentOS was entirely Red Hat's. The self-appointed 'community managers' decided that the community didn't actually want CentOS, they wanted a free version of RHEL-Beta called "CentOS Stream."

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#78

Post by worthless-trash »

korlja wrote: post #55
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…

RedHat licenses are just too expensive by sticker price. Beancounters haunt us for deploying RedHat because "the Windows license for that box would have been cheaper in our licensing model". That there is support included which we never use doesn't matter to them, the usual suggestion being "buy support for one box, test everything on that one, and open a support case for that one box, replicate the solution everywhe…

I believe it used to be like this, but it didnt take off. Per incident costs were not a good model.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#79

Post by rubyist5eva »

mroche wrote: post #74
rubyist5eva wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE Leap all support in-place upgrades between major versions. RedHat/CentOS do not.

Red Hat does support in-place upgrades for RHEL via Leapp, and the process around this has been improving. Granted I know in the past this process was... sub-optimal and restrictive. It is true that CentOS has not supported this. I am hoping we can achieve a "dnf system-upgrade" process on RHEL, but we'll see how that goes. RHEL 7 -> RHEL 8: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterp... RHEL 8 -> RH…

I’ve only ever heard negative things about Leapp and it always seemed like an unloved side thing, which is why I didn’t mention it.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#80

Post by worthless-trash »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #68
dralley wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing all the Debian and Ubuntu LTS and OpenSUSE Leap users would do, upgrade to a newer release. 10 years of unpaid support has always been an anomaly that no other LTS distro provided.

Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE Leap all support in-place upgrades between major versions. RedHat/CentOS do not.

I have dealt with many, many customers who update between major versions on RHEL while working in RH support.
Post reply on HN