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

11–20 of 235 posts

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#11

Post by azlev »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #6
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…

It's an huge company with mixed incentives. Not everyone is align whatever their alignment is.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#12

Post by chabad360 »

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.

In his defence, most bugs in the kernel can be exploited, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to treat a "bug" with a PoC better than one without.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#13

Post by derekp7 »

darkhelmet wrote: post #7

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 b…

Don't you end up with the same problem with the automation that has been running fine for 5 years, then suddenly breaks? And the person that set it up is either gone, or has no clue how they did it 5 years ago.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#14

Post by bogantech »

darkhelmet wrote: post #7

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 b…

> 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.

Whenever there's a new distribution release it invariably breaks a bunch of things with the automation and you spend more time massaging your playbook so it works again than it would have taken to do it by hand

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#15

Post by NegativeK »

darkhelmet wrote: post #7

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 b…

> complete their automation

There are too many places where the current guard is going to have to die off before they even _start_ automation. So we're looking at 20-30 years.

LTS is the actual sane solution for these places, despite how utterly insane it is.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#16

Post by CrampusDestrus »

azlev wrote: post #11
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's an huge company with mixed incentives. Not everyone is align whatever their alignment is.

>Yes, we know that this is Oracle, but...

There might be different alignments, but you simply cannot write stuff like this and get away with it if any of your superiors disagree.

That page literally admits Oracle is an asshole company

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#17

Post by scrlk »

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

I'm reminded of Bryan Cantrill's rant about Oracle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=1981s

> "As you know people, as you learn about things, you realize that these generalizations we have are, virtually to a generalization, false. Well, except for this one, as it turns out. What you think of Oracle, is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle. And I gotta say, as someone who has seen that complexity for my entire life, it's very hard to get used to that idea. It's like, 'surely this is more complicated!' but it's like: Wow, this is really simple! This company is very straightforward, in its defense. This company is about one man, his alter-ego, and what he wants to inflict upon humanity -- that's it! ...Ship mediocrity, inflict misery, lie our asses off, screw our customers, and make a whole shitload of money. Yeah... you talk to Oracle, it's like, 'no, we don't fucking make dreams happen -- we make money!' ...You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle."

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#18

Post by TheIronMark »

If you have to run an "Enterprise Linux", you are probably required by regulations or compliance to have a support agreement in place. Whether it's RedHat or Oracle or something else, security is going take third place to compliance and stability.

Re: What's wrong with enterprise Linux

#19

Post by its-summertime »

What's missing is an example of a case where there is a potentially relevant exploit:

Many times, even Debian has avoided being hit by a vulnerability, just due to a good wack of issues being in fresh code changes.

And many times, even when the vulnerability has been a long existing one: RHEL is pretty focused on defense-in-depth, through compiler flag choices, SELinux setups, etc.

Post reply on HN