121–130 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does `apt` handle packages as cleanly as `dnf` and `yum`? Last time I tried `apt`, it would uninstall apps without cleaning after itself.
“apt purge” takes no prisoners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Red Hat had given a lifecycle for CentOS 8 with an EOL in 2029. IBM acquired Red Hat, and promptly announced they were reneging on this schedule. Given that the primary draw of CentOS/RHEL are long-term, reliable, well-supported, stable operating systems, users were... displeased. CentOS stream is primarily intended to onboard users onto RHEL, which is undesirable when nobody trusts Red Hat to keep their word now.
> Red Hat had given a lifecycle for CentOS 8 with an EOL in 2029 I thought that neither Red Hat nor CentOS foundation gave a lifecycle date for CentOS 8. Can you help me find that lifecycle statement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does this give Red Hat the right to effectively "close source" the code for RHEL despite contributions from the rest of the community? Legally, yes. Not sure what the point is you're trying to make. I'm not sure why anyone would want to use a downstream distribution of Red Hat if they don't like Red Hat's trajectory. If you don't like Red Hat's current objectives with RHEL, it should be as simple as: stop using som…
> Legally, yes. Not sure what the point is you're trying to make. Legally, no; unless RH is the only copyright holder, they get to follow the same rules as everybody else, and for GPL packages that means not imposing additional restrictions on redistribution of source code. > If you don't like Red Hat's current objectives with RHEL, it should be as simple as: stop using something downstream of RHEL. People are fine w…
And there aren't any. "RHEL Linux" isn't GPL licensed, the kernel is, and glibc is, and systemd is, etc. Individually.
The sources for all of those packages (and ones that aren't GPL licensed, for which there is not actually a legal requirement to distribute sources), individually, are available via CentOS Stream just as they ever were.
What Red Hat has stopped doing is providing a git repo containing the exact combination of package sources which collectively make up one particular version of RHEL. Instead, all of the sources are still available, but if you want to rebuild the entire distro you need to figure out which particular versions to use. And that's exactly what Alma Linux does.
Well, Redhat has to make money somehow, so this decision is understandable. To me, open-source is about the open, transparent "culture" in which you commit to develop, not about putting things out there for free (as in free beer). Too many companies already benefiting from open-source packages (e.g., OpenCV) without giving anything back to the community.
> Well, Redhat has to make money somehow, so this decision is understandable. RedHat has been making money for decades. The Centos rug pull was just a way to make more money at the expense of their users and the larger open source community. It is impossible to justify a rug pull. By definition, it is a hostile, one-sided, trust-destroying, and underhanded move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They strictly want to take what Red Hat sells and rebuild and distribute it for free. I think this is an unfair framing. Rather, they want to take all the GPL source code that Red Hat is obligated to make available, and distribute it freely. They believe this is in accordance with both the law and the software license that Red Hat agreed to, when using it as a basis for their business in the first place. Personally…
All of the source code is already available, in CentOS Stream, from which RHEL is built in the first place. What they want to do, is do an exact rebuild of RHEL without having to go through the effort of putting the distribution together themselves, matching the versions that are used in a particular version of RHEL against what is available via CentOS Stream.
That's both spirit and letter. Don't fall for people making up additional terms that aren't in the license.
a. Go to Debian (or ubuntu server etc); probably the most difficult since everything will be different b. Go to a fresh Almalinux or Rocky 9 installation; also very difficult since there's a lot of stuff to be moved c. Try to use in-place upgrade using Leapp or something. There are some guides for this (https://wiki.almalinux.org/elevate/ELevating-CentOS7-to-Alma...) but I'm really not sure how good this would work on a live production system.
I'd definitely prefer the solution c, if I can confirm that it works of course. Has anybody tried using leapp to upgrade Centos 7 to Rocky/Alma ? What was your experience? Do you feel that it's worth researching that path or it's probably better to move to a greenfield installation?
Thank you for any insights!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“apt purge” takes no prisoners.
Apt purge cleans up user config files after a package, but not package dependencies. For complete package removal, apt autoremove is needed even after apt purge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“apt purge” takes no prisoners.
Apt purge cleans up user config files after a package, but not package dependencies. For complete package removal, apt autoremove is needed even after apt purge.
That looks like an unnecessarily long process to safely remove a package. Why isn't that the default behavior on Debian?
For better or for worse, this has caused a lot of software vendors to drop RHEL/CentOS support. Many have started to offer Ubuntu support in it's place. Most of them didn't even try to support stream. I'm not sure what the process behind that was. CentOS was free, which is why we used it. Sure, our SAP boxes run RHEL but the other stuff doesn't. We started moving a lot of stuff to Ubuntu as well. Now, Ubuntu is by no…
I am always baffled by people using ubuntu because "free". I get the desire if you want the paid stream. EG, an alternative to Redhat or SuSE as a paid stream. But if you're going to use Ubuntu, why put up with the snaps, the commercialism, the app store, when you can just use debian? Every time I hear a reason why, it makes little sense to me. Even though 95% of Ubuntu is Debian, and Ubuntu wouldn't exist without De…
I still have bad memories of going to the DC with a USB stick with network driver on them because the Dell server with Debian on it would not ship with non proprietary firmware / drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am curious about what the expense of support gets you that a typical IT person could not find on some forum somewhere online.
That's why i wrote insurance, not insurance for the installation but your job position AKA someone else has to fix the problem ;) Same as: No one gets fired for buying IBM (if your really old...like me)