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

I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 410 posts

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#361

Post by bmacho »

justinclift wrote: post #355
mattl wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I saw it too.. we used a precursor to Ubuntu Pro so I'm sure my message was less obnoxious. I think they're also offering patches for some commonly installed third-party stuff like nodejs via Ubuntu Pro. I actually quite like Ubuntu Pro for the fact I can send a developer a laptop and know that there's 24/7 support from Canonical. I was a little dubious at how good they'd be, but they were able to diagnose the…

> I think they're also offering patches for some commonly installed third-party stuff like nodejs via Ubuntu Pro. Yeah. That rubs me the wrong way. Like, they're clearly entitled to pay developers money for whatever they want. However, they're paying developers to develop patches they're not sharing back with their upstream in a timely fashion: 1. Without those patches going through the upstream channel(s), there's n…

Is there a free Ubuntu Pro clone, like Alma and Rocky for Red Hat?

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#362

Post by bonzini »

parasubvert wrote: post #207
jzb wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just the opposite, I think. Red Hat is fighting the idea that the operating system is a commodity, and demonstrating that the RHEL subscription does have value. Red Hat's competitors have tried really really hard to undermine RHEL as something of value. The cloud providers like AWS and Azure provide their own base Linux distros to run workloads on. They'd love to cut Red Hat out of the picture. Oracle wants to convin…

Not the opposite. You're agreeing with the parent that Red Hat is viewing to de-commodify Linux. You just can't seem to see why this a bad thing. Red Hat does not have the interests of the community in mind any longer, which was inevitable when IBM purchased them.

The parent comment is a bit confusing in that it says de-commoditizing Linux, which is one thing, but then talks about de-commoditizing RHEL.

Yes, Red Hat wants to show that Linux can be treated as a commodity except when it can't; that the work on a distro can be separated into parts that can be shared with the community and parts that people are willing to pay for; that rebuilders are reducing the value of the latter and the only game-theoretical outcome is that no one will have the money to do this work.

Without going into the discussion of whether that's correct or not, it's not a particularly new stance. It was the whole point of separating Fedora and RHEL in 2004.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#363

Post by bonzini »

bvrmn wrote: post #315
mattdm wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no any guarantees Stream doesn't break ABI compatibility. This is incorrect. Or, sure, there are no _guarantees_, but any such break would also break a future RHEL release, and is therefore a bug. 2. Five years.

AFAIK, there is no rule RHEL is strictly based on Stream.

RHEL is branched from Stream and released from the branch every 6 months.

I challenge you to find _one_ package in RHEL (as of the git.centos.org c9 branch) that reverted an ABI breakage that is in Stream, without said reversion having been applied to Stream as well.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#364

Post by vetinari »

bonzini wrote: post #357
vetinari wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> forget to commit it to CentOS Stream until a week or two after it's shipped. Or months, even. See httpd and php right now, and the CVEs solved this year. CentOS Stream doesn't have it, Alma has.

CentOS Stream is on a different httpd patch release, it gets the fixes from upstream instead of backporting them. If you have a specific CVE number that you're thinking about, I can check the status internally.

CentOS Stream 8 is on:

* httpd-2.4.37-54.module_el8­.8.0+1256+e159­8b50 (released 2022-12-08)

* php-7.4.30-1.module_el8.7­.0+1190+d11b935a­ (2022-08-04)

Almalinux 8 is on:

* httpd-2.4.37-56.module_el8­.8.0+3560+c8e5­e57e.6 (released 2023-04-27)

* php-7.4.33-1.module_el8.8­.0+3477+f828cbb0­ (2023-01-13)

So meanwhile, for httpd the following was released:

* 2.4.37-56.6 - Resolves: #2190133 - mod_rewrite regression with CVE-2023-25690

* 2.4.37-56.4 - Resolves: #2177748 - CVE-2023-25690 httpd:2.4/httpd: HTTP request splitting with mod_rewrite and mod_proxy

* 2.4.37-56 - Resolves: #2162499 - CVE-2006-20001 httpd: mod_dav: out-of-bounds read/write of zero byte; #2162485 - CVE-2022-37436 httpd: mod_proxy: HTTP response splitting; #2162509 - CVE-2022-36760 httpd: mod_proxy_ajp: Possible request smuggling

* 2.4.37-55 - Resolves: #2155961 - prevent sscg creating /dhparams.pem

For php:

* 7.4.33-1 - rebase to 7.4.33, fix: due to an integer overflow PDO::quote() may return unquoted string

There are already issues filled in bugzilla:

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217408

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217409

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#365

Post by bonzini »

vetinari wrote: post #364
bonzini wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CentOS Stream is on a different httpd patch release, it gets the fixes from upstream instead of backporting them. If you have a specific CVE number that you're thinking about, I can check the status internally.

CentOS Stream 8 is on: * httpd-2.4.37-54.module_el8­.8.0+1256+e159­8b50 (released 2022-12-08) * php-7.4.30-1.module_el8.7­.0+1190+d11b935a­ (2022-08-04) Almalinux 8 is on: * httpd-2.4.37-56.module_el8­.8.0+3560+c8e5­e57e.6 (released 2023-04-27) * php-7.4.33-1.module_el8.8­.0+3477+f828cbb0­ (2023-01-13) So meanwhile, for httpd the following was released: * 2.4.37-56.6 - Resolves: #2190133 - mod_rewrite regression with…

Thanks, I've forwarded this.

_EDIT_: looks like it's not intentional, there are bugs that got to MODIFIED state despite the updates having not been pushed, and then got stuck there.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#366

Post by strzibny »

kkielhofner wrote: post #174
freedomben wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you tried to run your app on it and ran into trouble, and you conclude that Fedora is an unstable hunk of shit? Also, this attitude that Fedora is just a tester for a commercial product is absurd. I suppose this is the same logic that makes CentOS Stream just a "beta" of RHEL (but strangely, these same people don't consider RHEL a "beta" for old CentOS even though consistency would demand this). Anecdotally, I've…

My conclusion was, essentially, that if I can't get our application to work with Fedora in a way that is practical, approachable, and sustainable for our "average" user it should likely be unsupported. I should also add I was working with at least one person who has a tremendous amount of experience with Fedora and they were taken aback by the whole experience as well. I should also note our application, specifically…

Fedora is really great. I use it on desktop for over 10 years now. Very stable (like 2 issues in all that time). Much better than alternatives.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#367

Post by tremon »

type0 wrote: post #336
ptoal wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my position, I don't feel any IBM influence. In fact, if Red Hat were still a publicly traded stock, I believe the shareholders would have had much more influence than IBM is exercising right now. That said, from the outside looking in, I know that a lot of people have a negative view of IBM, and I can understand how they would come to the conclusion that this has something to do with IBM. Fully agree on the "PR…

> I believe the shareholders would have had much more influence than IBM is exercising right now. Well, you answered yourself why it went as it did. Don't you think answering to your shareholders is what keeps the company competitive and on the right course?

I don't see any link between shareholder demands and business viability, other than "keep the business profitable". What makes you think shareholders are more familiar with the market a company operates in than the company itself?

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#368

Post by CrLf »

neurostimulant wrote: post #309
CrLf wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that scenario, having lived in it for many years. However, in practice, that doesn't require bug-for-bug compatibility. The proof of this is that such software tends to run perfectly fine even across different RHEL major versions with just a few compatibility packages.

I don't use red hat based distro myself so I'm curious: if you want to run an old binary built for, say, RHEL from 5 years ago, can you run that binary on centos stream without dependency issue?

Don't know specifically about CentOS Stream, but I used to run things like IBM DB2, IBM TSM, and a few other stuff that was built for RHEL 4.x/5.x on RHEL 5.x/6.x.

One thing that I like about RPM is how most packages specify dependencies based on contents, not on package name or version. So, even if a package changes name, if it still contains the required ".so.x.y.z" library, it will work.

PS: I don't understand how people can complain about rpm/yum/dnf, 20 years ago it was already years ahead of what apt/deb is today.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#369

Post by wink »

onedognight wrote: post #194
barbariangrunge wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally impressed that Fedora is fully open source while being released by a for-profit company. I would have expected, when learning about this ecosystem, for Red Hat releases to be proprietary for 5 years, and then have those versions switch to a FOSS license, just as a way to ensure they can monetize their work. But Red Hat, at least in the past, sounds like they did something amazing, being able to go foss…

> I'm personally impressed that Fedora is fully open source while being released by a for-profit company You shouldn’t be. Fedora is a community project. RedHat, while a huge contributor, does not maintain all the packages therein. In the end, RHEL is a fork of Fedora so it’s reasonable for the contributors to Fedora to annoyed by this change in the ability to make OS rebuilds of RHEL.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that paints an overly simplified picture that ignores history.

AFAIK RHEL came out of Red Hat Linux and Fedora came later, then at some point they made Fedora the upstream. But it has never been a "fork"[0] and there was no clean cut, it just transitioned around.

[0]: OK, debatable - depends on the way you use the word fork. They're still Linux distros with common roots and packages were first introduced here or there. My main point is just that it's not like "Here's Fedora, and then later someone forked RHEL off" but more like RHL -> RHEL -> Fedora -> RHEL

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#370

Post by justinclift »

bmacho wrote: post #361
justinclift wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think they're also offering patches for some commonly installed third-party stuff like nodejs via Ubuntu Pro. Yeah. That rubs me the wrong way. Like, they're clearly entitled to pay developers money for whatever they want. However, they're paying developers to develop patches they're not sharing back with their upstream in a timely fashion: 1. Without those patches going through the upstream channel(s), there's n…

Is there a free Ubuntu Pro clone, like Alma and Rocky for Red Hat?

No idea personally.
Post reply on HN