Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation
I havent been following the saga, just learned about it last week. Was Red Hat losing money? Or they wanted more money?
They sold out to IBM which was already dying, now they are taking Red Hat down with them... sad times
I worked at a different office that got blue washed, it was depressing af, feel bad for the long-time redhatters
Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation
Can you share the top contenders for replacements?
debian most likely, still have to do a proper evaluation, it's a big lift to go from yum to apt though...
Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation
I'll admit it's a big source of schadenfreude for me and I hope compliance reaches similar decisions at $DAYJOB.
Can you share the top contenders for replacements?
debian most likely, still have to do a proper evaluation, it's a big lift to go from yum to apt though...
Yeah, the saddest bit about RHEL dying is that they really were the best distro by a wide margin. Redhat beat every piece of software into the RHEL way and what came out was an incredibly cohesive system. SELinux for all the years everyone cursed its name ended up working great in the end. All while being the most adventurous and ambitious distro in terms of adopting new userspace primitives.
I think the cloud instance is a pretty good option, and is effectively what the old-gangsta CentOS team was doing, with more or different steps. Back in the old days the RPMs were manually imported, there was no RH provided pipeline to get unbranded RPM sources. So it's really not a big deal to go back to the bad old ways, and if they want to ignore the new shiny CentOS stream way of things, well they are free to be as masochistic as they desire. Certainly nobody is forcing math students to use a graphing scientific calculator if they instead prefer to use a slide rule, because we sent men to the moon with slide rules... so I see no point in complaining about Linux neckbeards preferring to stay with the crufty old ways of importing package sources devoid of GIT history, or any modern pleasantries provided by CentOS Stream. I actually respect these rebuilders, although I think they are zealots to some extent, they are zealots in the good way, highly principled on the idea that software builds should be reproducible, for the sake of validating the software supply chain. But there is an insidious side, their user community is not aligned with the noble ideals of rebuilds, and tend to want the value without the costs. It's one thing to rebuild packages, and another to spin a compose of those rebuilt packages into a distro. That's what RH is apparently all bothered about, and I cannot blame them to some extent. But that said, the user community around the foot hills is still the RH user community for them all the way up high on mount Olympus. So I think Rocky, Alma, or whoever else will still get the package sources, no biggy. But what I wonder about is how RH will treat subscribers who deploy RH and the rebuilds.
Red Hat currently releases all sources as if they were GPL sources, but that may stop in the future. EG, an Apache 2 licensed project, they're under no obligation to release the source, but they currently choose to.
That will be the next move for the RHEL sources IMO. They'll probably stop releasing all non-GPL licensed code from RHEL proper.
Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation
I havent been following the saga, just learned about it last week. Was Red Hat losing money? Or they wanted more money?
IBM thought they could extract more than the already nice margins Red Hat was generating.
Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation
And now with the release of Debian 12 ("bookworm"), Debian is now sufficiently up-to-date for most users.
The "problem" with Debian is the lifecycle. You get about a 12-24 months at most of security patches, and that's effectively it (the patching model after that is unreliable). That means you've got to allocate resources for upgrading/validating far more regularly than you would with other distributions. Depending on the size of your business, that could get really expensive and disruptive, for negligible benefit.
Canonical Ubuntu has a longer support on their LTS releases, and may be preferable. If you can get past annoyance with things like snaps.