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

Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#41

Post by chasil »

em-bee wrote: post #36
nolist_policy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redhat doesn't ship btrfs because they don't have any engineers working on it and thus can't provide support for it. Anything that ships in RHEL is comes with a strong support guarantee that they just couldn't hold up for btrfs. The SAS controllers may be a similar thing, maybe they don't have the hardware anymore to regression test against.

rather they don't have any customers demanding it. if they had, hiring engineers to support that should not be the problem. incidentally, i never had a chance to figure out what the big deal was with the centos stream change, because i was already forced to switch to debian because btrfs was removed from the centos kernel.

> i was already forced to switch to debian because btrfs was removed from the centos kernel.

Funny!

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#42

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

oneplane wrote: post #28
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #17

This confuses me. I feel like we have a good thing going here between Fedora, CentOS, and RHEL. If they succeed and kill RHEL profitability are we really better off?

But that's the thing, there is no good thing going. CentOS used to be a community rebuild of RHEL, and you could then use that if you didn't want support from Red Hat. But that is no longer the case since Red Hat killed that. CentOS is now more like a beta version of RHEL and not a binary compatible build. At the same time, patches are made for RHEL that are kept secret and not published for CentOS. And all of this i…

> there is no good thing going.

Strong disagree. I benefit greatly from Fedora and CentOS Stream.

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#43

Post by paulryanrogers »

oneplane wrote: post #28
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #17

This confuses me. I feel like we have a good thing going here between Fedora, CentOS, and RHEL. If they succeed and kill RHEL profitability are we really better off?

But that's the thing, there is no good thing going. CentOS used to be a community rebuild of RHEL, and you could then use that if you didn't want support from Red Hat. But that is no longer the case since Red Hat killed that. CentOS is now more like a beta version of RHEL and not a binary compatible build. At the same time, patches are made for RHEL that are kept secret and not published for CentOS. And all of this i…

Rocky Linux carries on the spirit of the original CentOS, by a former founder no less

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#44

Post by csdreamer7 »

nani8ot wrote: post #34
csdreamer7 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RHEL for each package has both a source-git and dist-git. The dist-git is used to build the package and for the src-git it can be a link to a tag to the upstream + some patches in the dist-git. Check the spec file. These look like copies of dist-gits. The kernel is unique because RHEL forks the kernel and backports things while keeping a stable interface for testing and people to build upon (you won't see the removal…

> Strange, I do not see a kernel or linux package. The kernel source is pulled in by the respective .nix to build the kernel. Eg. the following defines which commit of zen-kernel should be used as source. https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/os-specifi...

Why are you posting a nix file?

We are talking about a RHEL clone. Specifically the lack of dist-git pkg for the most heavily changed package that differentiates RHEL from an upstream distro. The forked Linux kernel source code.

This file does not point to that EL fork. Just the upstream with the zen patches... I guess? Not looking at it too much past that 6.6 value in the first few lines.

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#45

Post by INTPenis »

oneplane wrote: post #28
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #17

This confuses me. I feel like we have a good thing going here between Fedora, CentOS, and RHEL. If they succeed and kill RHEL profitability are we really better off?

But that's the thing, there is no good thing going. CentOS used to be a community rebuild of RHEL, and you could then use that if you didn't want support from Red Hat. But that is no longer the case since Red Hat killed that. CentOS is now more like a beta version of RHEL and not a binary compatible build. At the same time, patches are made for RHEL that are kept secret and not published for CentOS. And all of this i…

That's not true. CentOS Stream is literally the testing ground for RHEL patches. So CentOS gets patches much earlier now than it ever did as a community project.

I relied heavily on CentOS but at least I'm being honest, I relied on CentOS because it was a free version of RHEL. People got so mad when RHEL took away their free OS that they make up all sorts of excuses.

Fact is Red Hat have been contributing back to open source for 25+ years. As far as companies goes, it's one of the best we have in the open source ecosystem.

So this is why we can't have nice things. When someone actually get successful in open source we try to destroy them.

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#46

Post by ungamedplayer »

spandextwins wrote: post #40
averageRoyalty wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? It's been a while, but 5 years ago I worked for a company with a Red Hat support contract, and we found them incredibly helpful. Everyone we spoke to had deep Linux knowledge, and their team solved issues and gave us real worldn advice much faster and better than any vendor. I'd be sad if that's no longer true.

I remember thinking why don't they just do a WebEx with us to see what's going on. Nope, never. They just wanted us to ship logs to them and try random crap until they closed the ticket. Total waste of time and money.

Because there is legal complications in giving someone remote admin.

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#47

Post by ungamedplayer »

chasil wrote: post #24
mbakke wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only "enterprise" feature of RHEL is Red Hat support. There is nothing to standardise. If anything we need more commercially backed distributions to tear down the monoculture.

Rhel does things to their distribution that customers do not want. This is well-known. Two shining examples are the removal of older SAS controllers in the kernels of newer versions, and the fate of btrfs. OpenELA could easily grow in influence to a point where rhel will lose customers if they try it again. It will be interesting if such decisions push effective control of rhel to OpenELA. It could easily happen.

Btrfs was tech preview. There is no support or guarantee that tech previews remain in a release.

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#48

Post by voidr »

I reckon most people complaining about RHEL: - never really needed to use an enterprise OS, they could have just used any other *nix. - don't understand that what Red Hat is doing is perfectly in line with not only Open Source but also Free Software

If you hate Red Hat or IBM, just don't use it and move on, use a community driven OS which is a lot easier and is probably a lot more flexible, you are not going to convince any enterprise to drop their RHEL subscriptions.

As many have pointed out: the support is RHEL, not the code, the code without Red Hat support and contracts is useless.

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#49

Post by spandextwins »

ungamedplayer wrote: post #46
spandextwins wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember thinking why don't they just do a WebEx with us to see what's going on. Nope, never. They just wanted us to ship logs to them and try random crap until they closed the ticket. Total waste of time and money.

Because there is legal complications in giving someone remote admin.

Not if they do it right. Lots of companies did that with us, some required it as part of their contract. We'd give them the ability to control or not, and what we were sharing with them. Way more efficient than sending up a tarball full of /var/log. Id argue THAT was a security and liability issue.

Re: Openela releases Red Hat source code on GitHub

#50

Post by chasil »

ungamedplayer wrote: post #47
chasil wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rhel does things to their distribution that customers do not want. This is well-known. Two shining examples are the removal of older SAS controllers in the kernels of newer versions, and the fate of btrfs. OpenELA could easily grow in influence to a point where rhel will lose customers if they try it again. It will be interesting if such decisions push effective control of rhel to OpenELA. It could easily happen.

Btrfs was tech preview. There is no support or guarantee that tech previews remain in a release.

And there is no guarantee that we will not use the UEK, because the feature is compelling.
Post reply on HN