41–50 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, community is more stable and professional. Frankly given I get less issues than my Rocky counterparts working 1 rack over my look of "I told you so", every time, says it all.
I'm curious -- what issues are your counterparts experiencing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>CentOS used to be a free rebranding of RHEL. CentOS was a binary/functionally compatible build of RHEL without the RHEL branding. >IBM effectively cut off CentOS. Red Hat (not IBM) made the decision to end CentOS Linux and move their focus toward CentOS Stream. >Rocky Linux is the replacement free RHEL-compatible distro... Rocky Linux is one of many choices for a RHEL-compatible distribution. I would also say CentOS…
> Rocky Linux is one of many choices for a RHEL-compatible distribution. I would also say CentOS Stream is also a viable choice. One of the main value propositions of RHEL (and RHL before it) is that each distro version has a fixed ABI throughout (kernel included), making it a valid compilation target for binary-only software. Neither Stream nor even Alma are that.
Maybe for current point releases of RHEL and derivatives, building against CentOS Stream may not be that great of an idea. For example, EPEL has different build targets that build against RHEL or CentOS Stream to account for the differences between point releases such as libraries (especially qt libraries!) and also to make the transition easier for their users between point releases when running a dnf update on the next RHEL point release.
As a side tangent: In my opinion, I think vendors should be compiling software against CentOS Stream to ensure compatibility and validation for the next RHEL point release, which should work for the next point release of RHEL, Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, and even Oracle Linux. I've not seen many vendors do this, though.
With that said, the differences that AlmaLinux have should not cause incompatibilities (and if there are, I can't see them being anything more than minor issues). This means that builds on an AlmaLinux build root should allow the software to still work on the others. Any of the distributions in the family should be fine as build targets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>CentOS used to be a free rebranding of RHEL. CentOS was a binary/functionally compatible build of RHEL without the RHEL branding. >IBM effectively cut off CentOS. Red Hat (not IBM) made the decision to end CentOS Linux and move their focus toward CentOS Stream. >Rocky Linux is the replacement free RHEL-compatible distro... Rocky Linux is one of many choices for a RHEL-compatible distribution. I would also say CentOS…
> Red Hat (not IBM) made the decision to end CentOS I don't understand what you mean here? Wasn't Red Hat already owned by IBM when this decision was made?
Can someone confirm or fill in details? * CentOS used to be a free rebranding of RHEL. * IBM effectively cut off CentOS. * Rocky Linux is the replacement free RHEL-compatible distro, but is higher effort to maintain than CentOS was. * "Rocky Linux from CIQ" is a commercial product that is attempting to compete with RHEL, by being lower-cost essentially-RHEL while still satisfying some is-there-a-company-behind-it "co…
- Greg Kurtzer, CIQ's founder and CEO, is the creator of Rocky Linux and the president & owner of the Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation.
- Many of the Rocky Linux maintainers are CIQ employees.
- The EULA for CIQ's commercial version of Rocky Linux is just as restrictive as the terms that Red Hat used to cut off RHEL source code availability. Notably, there's a section saying that customers may not "provide, license, sublicense, sell, resell, rent, lease, share, lend, or otherwise transfer or make available the Software to any third parties, except as expressly permitted by Ctrl IQ in writing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This change: https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ means that Alma is no longer covered by STIGs and other RHEL-specific certifications. Rocky is usually permitted to piggyback on such things. This has directly affected deployments (my team spent time migrating from one o the other as a direct consequence). Compatible, sure, but that is a narrow view of the value CentOS provided.
I cannot speak for AlmaLinux, but it's incorrect to say they're not compatible. They are most definitely still compatible with the upstream distributions. Yes, they have made some changes that make them quite different from the upstreams, but this was their choice and it works for their community and their overall goals. I personally don't see any issues with what they've chosen to do, but that's my extremely narrow…
But is it FIPS certified?
https://github.com/ciq-rocky-fips
Can someone confirm or fill in details? * CentOS used to be a free rebranding of RHEL. * IBM effectively cut off CentOS. * Rocky Linux is the replacement free RHEL-compatible distro, but is higher effort to maintain than CentOS was. * "Rocky Linux from CIQ" is a commercial product that is attempting to compete with RHEL, by being lower-cost essentially-RHEL while still satisfying some is-there-a-company-behind-it "co…
Some further context: - Greg Kurtzer, CIQ's founder and CEO, is the creator of Rocky Linux and the president & owner of the Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation. - Many of the Rocky Linux maintainers are CIQ employees. - The EULA for CIQ's commercial version of Rocky Linux is just as restrictive as the terms that Red Hat used to cut off RHEL source code availability. Notably, there's a section saying that customers m…
" .... The license granted in this Section 4 is conditioned upon Customer’s and its Authorized Users ’compliance with this Agreement. To the extent that the Software provided to you is not under an open source license, ...."
missed that part?
Now check the RHEL EULA wrt distributing the SOURCES of the FOSS based binaries.
And more drama from the machine that is being the FUD created over every misstep of RHEL/IBM. And I mean misstep not evil attack on the community. CIQ is the worst of FOSS and a blight causing nonsense arguing rather than actually contributing to a better community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some further context: - Greg Kurtzer, CIQ's founder and CEO, is the creator of Rocky Linux and the president & owner of the Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation. - Many of the Rocky Linux maintainers are CIQ employees. - The EULA for CIQ's commercial version of Rocky Linux is just as restrictive as the terms that Red Hat used to cut off RHEL source code availability. Notably, there's a section saying that customers m…
https://ciq.com/legal/eula/rocky-linux-from-ciq/ " .... The license granted in this Section 4 is conditioned upon Customer’s and its Authorized Users ’compliance with this Agreement. To the extent that the Software provided to you is not under an open source license, ...." missed that part? Now check the RHEL EULA wrt distributing the SOURCES of the FOSS based binaries.
RHEL's EULA has a similar sentence, "This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license." That's what I meant by "just as restrictive". Both services are subscriptions where continued access to the software provided by the subscription is conditional on the subscriber not giving third parties access to the service. CIQ's EULA also says that subscribers may not "access the Software in order to build a competitive product or services", which seems ironic considering their business model.