41–50 of 179 posts
OpenSuse is wonderful
What's the differentiator from the Fedora/Centos/RHEL line?
--
1: https://yast.opensuse.org/documentation
I wish they went for a 501(c)3 non-profit, rather than a 501(c)6 trade organization. The incentives between these two structures make a world of difference.
You will find that many of the open source backing non-profits are trade organizations. Some notable examples: - The Linux Foundation (which includes the CNCF and OpenJS Foundation) - Rust Foundation - Bytecode Alliance I don't mean to provide an opinion on incentives (and they are different as the parent suggests). I just mean to share that trade organizations are already common. Disclaimer: I work for SUSE but not…
I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server. And if I believed RH was being intentionally hostile, why would I support them at all and not go with a completely unrelated distro like SUSE?
OpenSuse is wonderful
What's the differentiator from the Fedora/Centos/RHEL line?
I've ran Ubuntu and openSUSE servers and aside from a profile issue with PHP and openSUSE, I don't know if AppArmor is even protecting anything. Everything just works and it makes me think AppArmor is only applied to specific apps/services and not globally.
SELinux (at least on Fedora) is present, everywhere, and will gladly let you know if something is blocked because of it. I prefer this kind of protection even if it's more annoying at times :p Just a few weeks ago I learned about bin_t and that made my SELinux config for that service a lot more simple.
Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros? I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server. And i…
You can't get RHEL for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the differentiator from the Fedora/Centos/RHEL line?
For me: yast (easy to use GUI/TUI for many administration tasks — useful for less experienced admins), snapper (filesystem snapshot management tool which automatically creates them before and after package management operations and allows you to boot into them or roll back if anything goes wrong. Quite similar to FreeBSD boot environments.) zypper is probably the best 'classic' package manager there is (although dnf…
I'm confused on the differences in repo priority between zypper (oS TW) and dnf (Fedora). Apparently dnf also allows setting repo priority, but I've never had to do it, and packages seem to come from expected repos without having to specify (stuff comes from RPM Fusion if I have those repos added). On TW I had to manually specify repo priority to something other than 99 and set a flag to allow vendor changes to have similar behavior; I like that kind of control but I didn't need to do it on Fedora.
OBS is nice in-concept but I don't like the idea of using it outside of openSUSE. I think Launchpad/PPAs for Ubuntu, Copr for Fedora, and AUR for Arch. I think OBS for openSUSE and don't like the idea of using OBS for other distros, even if that's one of the big benefits and point to OBS.
Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros? I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server. And i…
> If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. You can't get RHEL for free.
Things I read online say it's free, including https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download
As I understand, the only costs with RHEL include using it across a large number of machines in enterprise, and customer support. Someone using it on a few machines in a home lab should be fine I imagine?
Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros? I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server. And i…
> If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. You can't get RHEL for free.
I like this solution way much better. Now the only player that's missing here is Almalinux. Maybe it's not too late to make a U-turn and join this new group so that Redhat alone can be responsible for contributing to RHEL as intended.