Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or CockroachDB
It is as resilient as cockroaches? I don’t see the problem. Postgres uses an elephant as a mascot because “elephants don't forget”. What’s the difference? We are literally on the web . Look out for spiders!
Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
131–140 of 555 posts
Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#132Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#133The fact that a majority of the comments are whining about the name really shows you the worst part about open source: the non-contributing but highly entitled part of the community. If you don’t like the name, launch your own CentOS replacement. There’s no better time than now. If there’s one thing this project does not need right now, it’s armchair marketing experts. If you do care about a viable CentOS replacement…
(It’s not ancient. I made it up. But it’s sadly true.)
Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#134I am really interested to know why should anyone go with this when Debian or Ubuntu LTS exist. The two later have not changed their policies in the last decade, and they have a clear path for upgrading. CentOS was always a clear choice for device drivers support, but I never understood the stability claims.
Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Debian offers around three years of support. Ubuntu LTS around five. Both pale in comparison with Red Hat and, by proxy, CentOS.
Arguably, no one should be running a server that long in 2020. I would say a better reason is that while both are Linux distributions, they are distinct dialects and ecosystems. It isn't impossible to switch, but for institutions that have complex infrastructure built around the RHEL world, it is a lot of work to convert.
How would I run our SAP ERP apps/databases without "running servers that long"?
Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#136I am really interested to know why should anyone go with this when Debian or Ubuntu LTS exist. The two later have not changed their policies in the last decade, and they have a clear path for upgrading. CentOS was always a clear choice for device drivers support, but I never understood the stability claims.
Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#137The fact that a majority of the comments are whining about the name really shows you the worst part about open source: the non-contributing but highly entitled part of the community. If you don’t like the name, launch your own CentOS replacement. There’s no better time than now. If there’s one thing this project does not need right now, it’s armchair marketing experts. If you do care about a viable CentOS replacement…
Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but the price one pays are outdated packages. CentOS 8 was released few days ago with kernel 4.18, which not even LTS is, and is older than the current Debian stable kernel(!). If you need to install anything besides the base distro you need elrepo, epel, etc which I'm not sure can be counted as part of the support.
RHEL kernel versions are basically incomparable with vanilla kernel versions. They have hardware support and occasionally entire new features that have been backported from newer kernels in addition to the standard security & stability patches. This means that RHEL 7 using a "kernel version" from 2014 will still work fine with modern hardware for which drivers didn't even exist in 2014.
And for the same reasons that the affected users chose a "stable" and "supported" distro they were also unable to upgrade to one where the issue was fixed.
Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#139I have not seen much mention of alternatives to RHEL besides Oracle Linux. Another excellent alternative exists here: https://scientificlinux.org/
1: https://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX...
Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably, no one should be running a server that long in 2020. I would say a better reason is that while both are Linux distributions, they are distinct dialects and ecosystems. It isn't impossible to switch, but for institutions that have complex infrastructure built around the RHEL world, it is a lot of work to convert.
It's not really about running servers for 10 years. It's about having a platform to build a product on that you can support for 10 years. RHEL software gets old over time, but it's still maintained and compatible with what you started on. Consider an appliance that will be shipped to a literal cave for some mining operation. Do you want to build that on something that you would have to keep refreshing every year, so…