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

June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 228 posts

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#171

Post by tux1968 »

dralley wrote: post #162
skybrian wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's perfectly fine under open source licenses. You are allowed to build and redistribute your own binaries. That's both spirit and letter. Don't fall for people making up additional terms that aren't in the license.

It's perfectly fine but it shouldn't be cast as "freeing the source code, unjustly locked down by Red Hat", because it's not.

But that is pretty much exactly the contention of Rocky Linux. Well actually, they don't explicitly accuse Red Hat of unjustly locking down the source code, just that there are now some extra hurdles required to legally obtain it.

They do contend, that they are exercising their legal rights as enumerated in the software license that Red Hat agreed to, when it started to use and freely redistribute the work of others.

If you are denying they have this legal right, then I believe it's on you to explain and justify this legal position, rather than just asserting it as fact.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#172

Post by INTPenis »

I'm taking this opportunity to migrate a few k8s clusters from CentOS 7 to CoreOS instead. Which is a big move because it means that instead of using Ansible to setup the k8s services we put everything into Terraform and Ignition. Or cloud-init if you want to use Talos or Flatcar.

Other than those big clusters we have some CentOS systems spread out for minor services and those we're migrating to either RHEL or Fedora, depending on circumstances and requirements.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#173

Post by smaudet »

lpapez wrote: post #117
b112 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a long time Ubuntu user, I figured I'd try Debian a month ago for the same reasons you listed. It's supposed to be 95% the same, so why not. Fresh install, my bluetooth headphones didn't work. Reverted back to Ubuntu and they worked right away. That's my reason for using Ubuntu instead of Debian - I simply don't care enough to bother with these small things.

Except Ubuntu did what Fedora/RH didn't used to do - break my shit.

Everything would work great, then bam giant updates, everything broken (bluetooth, wifi, video, graphics cards, audio), have to start from scratch learning some new fad Ubuntu folk had invented.

When I want to tinker or try out cool-new-tech, then sure, a platform like Ubuntu is great - semi-stable, half-working software.

When I don't, Debian/CentOS are hands down just better. Sure, I have to configure my bluetooth, but I have to do it just once _and it never breaks_.

Fedora used to be pretty great, then some personalities with inflated opinions of themselves started ruining the relative stability.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#174

Post by wpm »

hinkley wrote: post #149
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that explains a lot. Historically, the basic idea as I understood it was that you could have the software for free (CentOS) and they didn't really mind because they knew they were selling support. If the support is worthless, then they have to try and squeeze money out of the software, which explains their behavior.

Squeezing money out of effectively unsupported software is not sustainable. Sounds like someone is trying to get their investment back before dumping the whole thing.

Dumping? This is IBM we're talking about. They'll ratchet up the price to fewer and fewer customers, trying to keep themselves in that pocket where they're too useful and expensive to move away from, but still able to hold the irons to their customers.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#175

Post by fgonzag »

tuna74 wrote: post #156
bluedino wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ansys for one https://www.ansys.com/content/dam/it-solutions/platform-supp... Veeam doesn't support CentOS stream or 9, there's been a bunch of things here and there. I notice many are moving to Ubuntu. I had to go through all of our vendors last year, and the nice thing about CentOS was almost everyone supported it. Now there's no 'gold standard'.

It says they support RHEL: "Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.8, 7.9, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6 (64-bit)"

So not stream (OP never stated RHEL, he stated many packages not supporting stream) AND it doesn't support RHEL 9 which came out almost 2 years ago.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#176

Post by JeremyNT »

jasoneckert wrote: post #2

This EOL date is a generous one. Like my organization, most others I know have already completed their migration from CentOS to RHEL/Fedora/Rocky/Alma/etc during the early part of 2023. Thus, these 6 months are mainly for the few outliers who have not.

> This EOL date is a generous one. Like my organization, most others I know have already completed their migration from CentOS to RHEL/Fedora/Rocky/Alma/etc during the early part of 2023. Thus, these 6 months are mainly for the few outliers who have not.

I can't disprove your anecdote but do you think this is really true? Orgs who ran CentOS likely did so with the idea that they'd have a very long time to migrate to something different. CentOS 8 nominally had support until something like 2032, so it seems like a really major change to go from almost a decade to a little over a year to migrate away.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#177

Post by ebiester »

BSDobelix wrote: post #53

This is really the time to make a decision, do you really need support..ehm sorry insurance? Then RedHat/Suse/Oracle if not, choose a trusted community distribution like Debian.

My understanding is that the real problem is twofold:

First, some proprietary software only supports a subset of distributions. Debian is rarely on that list. RHEL, for some time, has been a safe default.

Second, IT organizations only want to support one distribution when at all possible.. As such, RHEL and CentOS made a lot of sense. RHEL and Debian means twice the work.

That said, it's going to have to change. $349 for every 2 VMWare images (as I understand it) plus $2499 for every 2 processor sockets adds up.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#178

Post by orthoxerox »

heywoodlh wrote: post #87
chasil wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, Alma is following the stream release, which is slightly upstream and less stable than RHEL. https://linux.slashdot.org/story/23/07/29/0214234/almalinux-... Rocky and SUSE Liberty Linux aim to be bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL, which has become more difficult.

> which is slightly upstream and less stable than RHEL As a user who almost exclusively uses rolling release OS-es, is this actually something people care about? CentOS Stream is downstream of Fedora -- and Fedora is a rock solid base. It's not like CentOS Stream is riddled with bugs, broken features, etc.

Yes, this is something people running servers want. A lot of enterprisey software is supported only on LTS releases of operating systems.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#179

Post by orthoxerox »

mrweasel wrote: post #48
phpisthebest wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see what separates Alma from CentOS Stream at this point The entire Propose of CentOS was Binary Compatibility with RHEL, largely for Vendor compliance reasons, if a vendor of a commercial software product validated RHEL 7 for their software running CentOS 7 was also supported Running CentOS Stream, or now Alma Linux would not be as their are no longer binary compatible with RHEL. the Hostility of IBM and R…

> if you are running ERP Systems, LOB Apps, or other critical functions that measure their code life in decades That's really what confuses me about the people who use CentOS or Rocky, they want or need the stability of RHEL, so that they can run these crucial applications, that mostly aren't cheap, yet they refuse to pay for the development of the operating system they run it them? I really don't see the point in an…

> That's really what confuses me about the people who use CentOS or Rocky, they want or need the stability of RHEL, so that they can run these crucial applications, that mostly aren't cheap, yet they refuse to pay for the development of the operating system they run it them?

Yes. Non-prod (or even prod and non-critical) servers usually outnumber critical prod servers, and it makes sense to not run RHEL on them and pay for support, but to run a 100% compatible distro.

Re: June 30th, 2024, will bring the End of Life (EOL) of CentOS Linux (2023)

#180

Post by orthoxerox »

mrweasel wrote: post #148
mjw1007 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory that Red Hat users are supposed to be paying for development of the system is a recent one. What Red Hat used to say is that the software is free and their users are paying for support. That made a great deal of sense, as of course Red Hat themselves were shipping a great deal of software written by other people without paying for its development. There's nothing confusing about people declining to go alon…

> There's nothing confusing about people declining to go along with this change. No, but why stay on a platform from a vendor that has a business model you find hostile? I can see the need for a transition period, but I'd start looking for another vendor that has value and pricing that aligns more with my ideals. People seem hellbent on staying on a RHEL-like platform. Also, CentOS isn't/wasn't exactly new, the curre…

> People seem hellbent on staying on a RHEL-like platform.

Not really, Ubuntu Server has surged in popularity.

Post reply on HN