I think what Red Hat did to CentOS is a real shame. But seeing that it's Red Hat, it's not surprising.
True but misses the real point, which is that RH should never have acquired CentOS in the first place.
Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
21–30 of 47 posts
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#22I think what Red Hat did to CentOS is a real shame. But seeing that it's Red Hat, it's not surprising.
True but misses the real point, which is that RH should never have acquired CentOS in the first place.
I don't think I missed the real point. That point was the major part of what I was saying.
Sadly, Red Hat is the Microsoft of the Linux world, and so I grieve for anything they touch.
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#23For those who are out of the loop, like I was, here is how I'm understanding this... "CentOS" tracked behind RHEL, and is considered more stable? Regardless, CentOS 7 is the last supported major version, and it's reaching EOL soon and will not be maintained. This sounds like a push to get those who use CentOS (free) to move to RHEL (paid) to stay in the long-cycle ecosystem. "CentOS Stream" is a flavor that tracks ah…
[deleted]
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#24I think what Red Hat did to CentOS is a real shame. But seeing that it's Red Hat, it's not surprising.
True but misses the real point, which is that RH should never have acquired CentOS in the first place.
the community was dying, the single digit people maintaining it wanted to quit doing it
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
True but misses the real point, which is that RH should never have acquired CentOS in the first place.
the community was dying, the single digit people maintaining it wanted to quit doing it
I've heard similar before. So? The problem with that for RH was what, exactly?
There was White Box Linux, Scientific Linux, PUIAS Linux, etc. And Oracle Linux of course.
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t it like all these alternative distributions have to do is buy one license for RHEL and get the sources RedHat uses?
In practice, yes. In theory, no, because the license strictly prohibits this. They'd get sued into oblivion or their first release.
Is this statement about the license fact or theory? If you deliver GPL software you have to release everything for redistribution.
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#27Wow. Redhat / IBM is no longer going to publicly make the source code to RHEL releases available. Alma and Rocky Linux literally just died. Screw you IBM... and the creepy Linux kids coattails that ya rode in on.
Is there a link to rockylinux or almalinux expectation of this news? I just finalized choosing Rockylinux for our next generation HPC clusters!
[edit] this is the link: https://rockylinux.org/news/2023-06-22-press-release/
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#28Wow. Redhat / IBM is no longer going to publicly make the source code to RHEL releases available. Alma and Rocky Linux literally just died. Screw you IBM... and the creepy Linux kids coattails that ya rode in on.
Is there a link to rockylinux or almalinux expectation of this news? I just finalized choosing Rockylinux for our next generation HPC clusters! [edit] this is the link: https://rockylinux.org/news/2023-06-22-press-release/
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#29All customers of Redhat should start daily sync of all source RPMs. That way, Redhat can't find out who is sharing source RPMs with Alma and Rocky. Right now, customers just sync binary RPMs.
Re: Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
#30For those who are out of the loop, like I was, here is how I'm understanding this... "CentOS" tracked behind RHEL, and is considered more stable? Regardless, CentOS 7 is the last supported major version, and it's reaching EOL soon and will not be maintained. This sounds like a push to get those who use CentOS (free) to move to RHEL (paid) to stay in the long-cycle ecosystem. "CentOS Stream" is a flavor that tracks ah…
Backports are important for long term support. Say, you have some-pkg-1.2.5-83.el9.x86_64, CentOS Stream will have some-pkg-2.10.32-3.el9.x86_64 (with extra features, enhancments, security fixes), while customers want just CVEs to be back ported to some-pkg-1.2.x
This creates problems for long term support, as it requires more resources, who understand the code base for some-pkg in order to apply selective fixes. Right now, if one knows how to build rpms and how to integrate them is enough to become a clone of downstream RHEL.
I think, only Oracle can pull off this feat, as they can put more people to work to solve this problems. 1:1 compatibility becomes hard, as 1000+ packages need to be taken care of.