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

What's wrong with enterprise Linux

unix.foo

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 235 posts

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#2

Post by mbreese »

> The Case for Oracle Linux

I did not see that twist coming.

Strangely, the author makes a good point. Oracle or not, sticking closer to the upstream kernel is not a bad way to manage an “enterprise” kernel. Maybe we’ve all been too willing to sit back and accept how RHEL does kernels as “the way”.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#3

Post by gjsman-1000 »

mbreese wrote: post #2

> The Case for Oracle Linux I did not see that twist coming. Strangely, the author makes a good point. Oracle or not, sticking closer to the upstream kernel is not a bad way to manage an “enterprise” kernel. Maybe we’ve all been too willing to sit back and accept how RHEL does kernels as “the way”.

I actually did really like the point; but I would be very interested in hearing a rebuttal or counterargument from Red Hat.

Linus' "security problems are just bugs" approach has been worrisome.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#5

Post by indymike »

mbreese wrote: post #2

> The Case for Oracle Linux I did not see that twist coming. Strangely, the author makes a good point. Oracle or not, sticking closer to the upstream kernel is not a bad way to manage an “enterprise” kernel. Maybe we’ve all been too willing to sit back and accept how RHEL does kernels as “the way”.

> Oracle or not, sticking closer to the upstream kernel is not a bad way to manage an “enterprise” kernel.

This is probably a lot better than expecting it to be possible to maintain a secure release with a level of compatibility guarantee for 10+ years.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#6

Post by gjsman-1000 »

CrampusDestrus wrote: post #4

Holy.... that Oracle linux page is so friendly it almost makes me puke. I can't believe anyone would fall for them

The same company that just two weeks ago was sending out unsolicited emails asking companies about Java licensing - a friendly shakedown for using the official JRE...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36599118

Frankly, I don't get it Oracle. I would say the priorities are backwards - JRE free, Oracle Linux paid would make more objective sense (especially because the JRE used to be free... and there's a lot of free JREs out there.)

Also, don't be stupid enough to download the VirtualBox Extensions package at work; or your work will probably get an email from a licensing agent.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#7

Post by darkhelmet »

There is another problem that wasn't covered in the article. The 10+ years of stability leads to behaviors and outcomes that remind me of the long-lived SSL certificate problem. Updating is done so infrequently that the "how?" is forgotten. As the 10 year support limit approaches, most of the old team members who did it last time are gone, tech debt is through the roof, few people know where everything is or how to build it, and so on. Enterprise Linux "stability" enables all sorts of bad behavior if your company is inclined that way.

LetsEncrypt did us a huge favor by forcing automation vs having the guy who knows how to update the SSL certs every 4.9 years and left 6 months ago. I'd like to see the RHEL stability model go away too and force people to complete their automation and solve the problems of being able to rebuilding on demand - and actually doing it.

(I know, most HN folk are well disciplined but there are a lot of corporate cultures that are not.)

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#9

Post by smarx007 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #3
mbreese wrote: post #2

> The Case for Oracle Linux I did not see that twist coming. Strangely, the author makes a good point. Oracle or not, sticking closer to the upstream kernel is not a bad way to manage an “enterprise” kernel. Maybe we’ve all been too willing to sit back and accept how RHEL does kernels as “the way”.

I actually did really like the point; but I would be very interested in hearing a rebuttal or counterargument from Red Hat. Linus' "security problems are just bugs" approach has been worrisome.

I would expect that tracking the Linux kernel master just 4 weeks behind is going to cause more cases where, combined with enterprise software of typical quality, you'd need vendor support than with the RH way of changing as little as possible for as long as possible. And support is exactly what Oracle sells.

To be clear, I only used Oracle Linux briefly while playing with the free tier of Oracle Cloud.

Edit: sorry, but I don't get it, please break it down for me. Latest UEK 7 is based off 5.15 LTS ( https://docs.oracle.com/en/operating-systems/uek/ ), that puts them at branching off a kernel released on 2021-10-31 (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_version_history#R... ). How is that even remotely 4 weeks behind master?!

Edit 2: my bad, I didn't read the "behind the tip of the LTS tree" part carefully. So, the difference is that Oracle tries to ship all LTS kernel updates, while RH tries to cherry-pick critical security and bug fixes only?

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#10

Post by im_down_w_otp »

I could imagine an updated take on “Enterprise Distro”, in order to take advantage of the constantly shifting sands, being by and large defined & differentiated by some fantastical gauntlet of automated V&V pipelines: big piles of test suites, fuzzers, prop tests, trace-based testing, etc. etc.

More or less setting up a rigorous de facto compliance regime and making the arms race for enterprise distros be about who can establish the best regime and best gauntlet automation.

Post reply on HN