131–140 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about risk; many vendors produce software for a specific version of RHEL - we want to use exactly that version, but we don't want to pay through the nose for the support we don't need.
Exactly this. You can produce software that is compatible with a RHEL version without paying for RHEL if you’re not even using it
> With the advent of DevOps and SRE, businesses and startups are moving away from the old-school concept of traditional server clusters to running their applications on disposable containers. The trend is clear and true. Developers are increasingly less reliant on a tried-and-true Linux distribution that lasts for a decade. With containers, developers can develop, test, deploy, and rollback with blazing fast velocity…
> These days it's more "possibility of a problem" vs "absolutely rock solid". CentOS is mostly a server distro, I bet 99% of installs are without GUI. So "possibility of a problem" is a no go for a server.
Call me old fashioned, but I ship both my private projects and those at work as debian packages. Debian packages are trivial to put into a container, and we tried that, but honestly it's not half as nice to work with. With containers you have to do a ton of extra steps to get functionality and debugging on a level a default debian system provides you. Additionally the tools to automate the installation and configurat…
I guess call me new fashioned, but I've never really understood how to use debian packages well. I recall vaguely looking into the dpkg and build commands many years ago, it felt kind of inscrutable and clunky and I didn't find good resources that made it easy to learn so I just gave up on it and kept using the shell script to install the thing I needed with its dependencies. By contrast, docker build and docker run…
Having a multi-megabyte docker container to run some random program just seems...wasteful.
I somehow missed that Red Hat started sponsoring CentOS a while back, and owns the trademarks. I mean, money and cooperation is great and all, but how could anyone have expected CentOS Linux to continue for long when Red Hat has such a fundamental conflict of interest? Edit: here's the HN post at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7019914
Yeah, I assume this ends with somebody forking CentOS into another "redhat without redhat branding and license costs".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These days it's more "possibility of a problem" vs "absolutely rock solid". CentOS is mostly a server distro, I bet 99% of installs are without GUI. So "possibility of a problem" is a no go for a server.
Sorry to break this to you, but if the possibility of a problem is a no go for your servers, you will unfortunately have to pull the plug on them. All software has bugs, so does hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I don't understand what I'm doing, it doesn't matter what tools I'm using to fail to accomplish it.
Ah, the myth of the perfect programmer. Everyone makes mistakes, and state resets such as VMs or containers are one of the easiest ways to revert these mistakes.
Many mistakes are made against databases; maybe you can roll back, maybe you can't -- either way, it's cheaper in testing than production.
RedHat's goodwill will be spent down over the next decade or so, and eventually I fully expect to think of them the same way I do IBM. (Which is, roughly, the same way I think of Oracle.) All of the people I deal with there are the same as before the acquisition, so things have not changed much for me personally, yet. But I am looking at building replacements for certain tools we depend on; the writing is on the wall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These days it's more "possibility of a problem" vs "absolutely rock solid". CentOS is mostly a server distro, I bet 99% of installs are without GUI. So "possibility of a problem" is a no go for a server.
Sorry to break this to you, but if the possibility of a problem is a no go for your servers, you will unfortunately have to pull the plug on them. All software has bugs, so does hardware.
RedHat's goodwill will be spent down over the next decade or so, and eventually I fully expect to think of them the same way I do IBM. (Which is, roughly, the same way I think of Oracle.) All of the people I deal with there are the same as before the acquisition, so things have not changed much for me personally, yet. But I am looking at building replacements for certain tools we depend on; the writing is on the wall…
This is (at present) a standard progression in the life cycle of a corporation in the US. There are vanishingly few corporations left who practice a business model designed to span more than about 30 years. Most businesses today are founded, then the founders are bought out/merged, getting cash in the process. Then the new owners change things to effectively profit on the business at the expense of longevity, which c…
Or sell it to Micro Focus
RedHat's goodwill will be spent down over the next decade or so, and eventually I fully expect to think of them the same way I do IBM. (Which is, roughly, the same way I think of Oracle.) All of the people I deal with there are the same as before the acquisition, so things have not changed much for me personally, yet. But I am looking at building replacements for certain tools we depend on; the writing is on the wall…
Odd, isn't it, that nobody feels the need to ask what your opinion of Oracle is - it's just (with good reason) assumed.