Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rocky Linux 9.0

rockylinux.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#131

Post by jmnicolas »

freedomben wrote: post #38
tannhaeuser wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's a two-sided sword. There's no question RH employs/founds large parts of Linux development, with only Suse being remotely as involved (maybe historically). OTOH, RH has pushed "innovations" such as systemd purely in their own interest, fragmenting a once-strong and user-centric F/OSS Unix community also including the BSDs into a Linux-only cloud slavedom. Plus, it was IBM/RH who cancelled the CentOS roadm…

IBM had nothing to do with the CentOS decision. It was long time Red Hat people who made the decision. I don't agree with everything about the decision, but I don't think it's as bad as most people say it is[1]. You are definitely right that RH has pushed things in their own interest, but if those things don't offer value to the broader community, then the community won't adopt them. Red Hat can't force Debian or Ubu…

> I don't agree with everything about the decision, but I don't think it's as bad as most people say it is[1].

It was bad because when I chose CentOS for servers at work I thought I could count on letting them live their lives for about 10 years without worrying about them. I have a lot of things to do and taking care of those servers is a very low priority.

Thank God there was a script to convert my CentOSes to Rocky and that it went great, otherwise it would have taken time I don't have to reinstall those servers.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#132

Post by nicce »

iasay wrote: post #117
silisili wrote: post #115

Not to rain on this parade, but what specifically is the target user for Centos/Rocky these days? I've been a Linux user for more than 20 years. I absolutely saw the value of Mandrake/RedHat/Debian for years. Boring, stable. Got it. Those are important qualities. And Centos gave a free, easy to acquire and use taste of said stability. But today... everything is so different. I run rolling release, have a billion rand…

About 18 years ago I wrote an internal intranet application for someone in PHP (yuck). This runs one of their core business processes. Every 3 years we do a review of the system, replace the hardware and update the software. This is exactly where CentOS variants sit for me. The last two upgrade cycles, the computer has not been down at all in the interim. It has literally been up for 3 years. The only changes have be…

> Also never underestimate the power of having stuff you don’t have to touch or even go near. When was the last time you got paid monthly to do something once every three years?

This is not the reality for 99,9% of the world. If it is online, you need to patch security vulneralibities. Because your system is not immune to them.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#133

Post by chousuke »

silisili wrote: post #115

Not to rain on this parade, but what specifically is the target user for Centos/Rocky these days? I've been a Linux user for more than 20 years. I absolutely saw the value of Mandrake/RedHat/Debian for years. Boring, stable. Got it. Those are important qualities. And Centos gave a free, easy to acquire and use taste of said stability. But today... everything is so different. I run rolling release, have a billion rand…

For me, it's about having a stable platform for something; not all (or even most) components in a software system benefit at all from following the latest releases, and what "stable" distributions give me is the ability to keep those components up-to-date security-wise very easily and without having to worry that everything could explode due to major changes when I run "dnf update" (breakage does happens, but it's rare). I can have hundreds of hosts auto-patching themselves and still sleep soundly.

Something also needs to run your Kubernetes, and that can't always be AWS.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#135

Post by iasay »

nicce wrote: post #132
iasay wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 18 years ago I wrote an internal intranet application for someone in PHP (yuck). This runs one of their core business processes. Every 3 years we do a review of the system, replace the hardware and update the software. This is exactly where CentOS variants sit for me. The last two upgrade cycles, the computer has not been down at all in the interim. It has literally been up for 3 years. The only changes have be…

> Also never underestimate the power of having stuff you don’t have to touch or even go near. When was the last time you got paid monthly to do something once every three years? This is not the reality for 99,9% of the world. If it is online, you need to patch security vulneralibities. Because your system is not immune to them.

I'm not saying it isn't patched. It is just not bleeding edge or changing rapidly therefore the tradeoffs are different.

There's stuff out there that is nearing relic status that is still up and running and not patched or supported. Some of it isn't even touching a network so that's fine.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#136

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

nicce wrote: post #132
iasay wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 18 years ago I wrote an internal intranet application for someone in PHP (yuck). This runs one of their core business processes. Every 3 years we do a review of the system, replace the hardware and update the software. This is exactly where CentOS variants sit for me. The last two upgrade cycles, the computer has not been down at all in the interim. It has literally been up for 3 years. The only changes have be…

> Also never underestimate the power of having stuff you don’t have to touch or even go near. When was the last time you got paid monthly to do something once every three years? This is not the reality for 99,9% of the world. If it is online, you need to patch security vulneralibities. Because your system is not immune to them.

  # dnf install dnf-automatic
  # systemctl enable --now dnf-automatic-install

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#137

Post by js4ever »

awill wrote: post #95
js4ever wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find gross and unethical is your attitude, it's open source or not? If yes don't be shocked when someone is reusing your code legally.

I don't think it's fair to be that harsh. Ultimately Red Hat incurs costs from engineering RHEL. They fund that through support contracts. So obviously a company that doesn't incur these costs can sell support contracts for cheap. While it's legal, I agree there are grey areas around the ethics. Of course it's OSS, so you can't have expectations, but just imagine if all RHEL customers switched to 3rd party support. R…

I'm just using the exact same words used by the OP...

No one asked them to do that and put it in open source, if they are not happy they can go to closed source or different license... Like Microsoft... Maybe the new OP employer? That would make a lot of sense when I see his attitude

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#138

Post by iasay »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #136
nicce wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also never underestimate the power of having stuff you don’t have to touch or even go near. When was the last time you got paid monthly to do something once every three years? This is not the reality for 99,9% of the world. If it is online, you need to patch security vulneralibities. Because your system is not immune to them.

# dnf install dnf-automatic # systemctl enable --now dnf-automatic-install

I tend to actually test stuff before we patch it. RH have broken stuff in the past.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#139

Post by mroche »

josephcsible wrote: post #100
jaboutboul wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. The issue is trying to use Alma 8’s mock chroot on a CentOS 7 host. The (older) versions of yum and rpm there don’t support subkeys. There is a Red Hat BZ issue here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017069

Do RHEL/Rocky/CentOS Stream 8's mock chroots work on CentOS 7 hosts? If so, then this does seem like a legitimate binary incompatibility.

That is not what binary compatibility means when talking about RHEL. It refers to the actual package ABIs and the compatibility levels we assign them:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-abi-compatibility

https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility

https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel9-abi-compatibility

This would be closer to a bug-for-bug compatibility issue, as a result of an implementation change on the infra side of things. It's not due to the OS which is bug-for-bug compatible with its origin, RHEL 8.

While it would be nice if EL7 stacks are considered by the rebuild distributions, it's not a requirement and they are free to use features supported by the platforms they're building.

Re: Rocky Linux 9.0

#140

Post by rubyist5eva »

worthless-trash wrote: post #80
rubyist5eva wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE Leap all support in-place upgrades between major versions. RedHat/CentOS do not.

I have dealt with many, many customers who update between major versions on RHEL while working in RH support.

I’ve never heard good things about the experience of using leapp and it always seems like an unloved project.

Upgrading major versions of RHEL is akin to jumping 5+ versions of Fedora at once and I don’t think it could ever really work well without waaaaay too much work that probably isn’t worth it.

The Alma Linux “elevate” project seems to be attempting that using leapp as a framework but also allowing migration between RHEL derivatives so we’ll see how that pans out I guess.

Post reply on HN