121–130 of 307 posts
Now we just need to get them to fork Fedora.
Why? Because “Red Hat bad”? Can you explain a valid reason other than “Red Hat bad”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our contract with the Air Force required that we document guarantees from every parts vendor for the servers we built for them that they would keep making those parts for at least a decade. They also demanded RHEL exclusively. It's a great example of how extreme stability is more important than any other question in a lot of business decisions.
> from every parts vendor for the servers we built for them that they would keep making those parts for at least a decade and do main vendors (amd, intel, nvidia, whoever build motherboards) provide guarantees that they continue production of specific version of product for the decade? > They also demanded RHEL exclusively. It's a great example of how extreme stability is there evidence that rhel is more stable than…
This isn't a knock at Debian in any way and has nothing to do about whether or not it's more stable (in terms of uptime) or not.
> Dirk-Peter van Leeuwen, CEO of SUSE, said, According to LinkedIn Dirk-Peter started at Suse 3 months ago as CEO and worked for Red Hat for 18 years and was a Senior VP at Red Hat. I think this move of Suse could be a credible threat to IBM / Red Hat's RHEL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RHEL is designed to make forks difficult to do without infringing on trademarks.
Actually, quite the opposite. Going all the way upstream to Fedora, the trademarks are designed to be easy to change out. Going from Fedora to CentOS Stream shows one brand swap over. And if you have RHEL, you can easily compare the package sets between CentOS Stream and RHEL to see which packages are swapped for branding. Both Red Hat and SUSE distributions make it easy because internally both companies need to do t…
I'm continually baffled that so many companies follow RHEL compatibility to this day. I've been using Linux for nearly 30 years. Admining as a profession for at least a quarter of that. 20 years ago, it made a ton of sense. Today, less so. The 'stable version but we backport patches' mantra doesn't make any sense today. I can't even describe how many things that have broken that you can't even find an answer for beca…
If you cannot figure out, then you are not working with Linux, despite 30y+ of experience.
Big Companies need certifications, maintenance, support and compatibility is necessary. Specially companies running linux in mainframe, or for instance, delivering embedded devices like storages or medical devices
I'm continually baffled that so many companies follow RHEL compatibility to this day. I've been using Linux for nearly 30 years. Admining as a profession for at least a quarter of that. 20 years ago, it made a ton of sense. Today, less so. The 'stable version but we backport patches' mantra doesn't make any sense today. I can't even describe how many things that have broken that you can't even find an answer for beca…
> I can't figure out why RHEL compat is so desirable. Hey, here’s a comprehensive guide complete with commands, expected outcomes, and side effects of each command for setting up a Windows Domain using an RHEL domain controller: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_single... Oh, that’s for 7.5? One that’s 15 years old and no longer under standard support? It still works! Wait, but you’re a new custom…
Is the documentation for CentOS Stream that much worse? What does being RHEL-compatible get you over and above being CentOS Stream-compatible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way my engineering professor put it was so: when even 5 minutes of off-time costs $5,000 of product you want to be sure your systems are stable.
We are at 500k/hour for at least one system i know of at my current client (energy). Not sure what causes these expenses. It can be missing out on trading, or fines. There may be more of these systems :) Lots of redhat there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The community has a large amount of experience with debranding RHEL. CentOS did it for decades. If there is a left over of Red Hat branding, you'd have a hard time proving any kind of purposeful infringement.
I believe the idea is that RedHat will likely be more thorough with a commercial entity than they were with CentOS. Yes, I'm sure it's technically possible, but also possible they will get into some back-and-forth with RedHat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our contract with the Air Force required that we document guarantees from every parts vendor for the servers we built for them that they would keep making those parts for at least a decade. They also demanded RHEL exclusively. It's a great example of how extreme stability is more important than any other question in a lot of business decisions.
> from every parts vendor for the servers we built for them that they would keep making those parts for at least a decade and do main vendors (amd, intel, nvidia, whoever build motherboards) provide guarantees that they continue production of specific version of product for the decade? > They also demanded RHEL exclusively. It's a great example of how extreme stability is there evidence that rhel is more stable than…
In terms of stability, as others have pointed out all that means is "the vendor won't change it and will keep providing it"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't figure out why RHEL compat is so desirable. Hey, here’s a comprehensive guide complete with commands, expected outcomes, and side effects of each command for setting up a Windows Domain using an RHEL domain controller: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_single... Oh, that’s for 7.5? One that’s 15 years old and no longer under standard support? It still works! Wait, but you’re a new custom…
This is otherwise known as "industry standard". Changing an industry standard isn't impossible, but it will be a paradigm shifting challenge akin to moving mountains.
* with blackjack! and public git repos!