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

CentOS Stream

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: CentOS Stream

#21

Post by jerf »

bubblethink wrote: post #10

>CentOS Stream is parallel to existing CentOS builds So why does regular CenOS exist in this day and age given its semi-official status under the RH umbrella ? Why doesn't RH just let people use RHEL without support ? Isn't it a massive waste of everyone's resources to rebuild everything and remove the trademarks? This seems like a more interesting future for CentOS to have as something different from baseline RHEL.

"Trademark" is the key word. If RedHad permits things out into the market with their trademarks all over them that they did not sell, then they are at risk of losing their trademark. Remember the primary purpose of a trademark is to identify your products as yours, and not let anyone else identify their products as yours.

It's a contradiction in legal terms to have a trademark that is open source and anyone can use, and legal system's resolution is to declare your trademark isn't a trademark after all.

Re: CentOS Stream

#22

Post by CameronNemo »

mattdm wrote: post #14
tapoxi wrote: post #2

So this is confusing. Does this mean following a Chrome-ish lifecycle of Fedora > CentOS Stream > RHEL/CentOS? Where do Atomic Host/CoreOS fit in?

Right now, after RHEL branches from Fedora, it's disconnected — basically a fork more than a branch. This provides a public upstream for the RHEL 8.y branches. Atomic Host is being retired. CoreOS has two branches, one which is part of OpenShift (RHCOS) and Fedora CoreOS. That's very different from the RHEL model, so it doesn't directly map.

Original CoreOS is also built on Gentoo, not an RPM base.

Re: CentOS Stream

#23

Post by bonzini »

zokier wrote: post #12
jeremyjh wrote: post #11

So if we strip all the market speak out we are just getting a rolling release distribution like Debian testing?

As far as I can tell it is more rolling than Debian testing because it wouldn't need to be occasionally frozen etc for releases

Would it still be frozen for a month or two when RHEL minor releases enter beta?

Re: CentOS Stream

#24

Post by mattdm »

CameronNemo wrote: post #22
mattdm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, after RHEL branches from Fedora, it's disconnected — basically a fork more than a branch. This provides a public upstream for the RHEL 8.y branches. Atomic Host is being retired. CoreOS has two branches, one which is part of OpenShift (RHCOS) and Fedora CoreOS. That's very different from the RHEL model, so it doesn't directly map.

Original CoreOS is also built on Gentoo, not an RPM base.

Sure. That became Container Linux. Now we have Fedora CoreOS, which combines tech and ideas from both Atomic Host and CoreOS/Container Linux. It uses Fedora packages but through rpm-ostree, not with the yum/dnf system you might be used to.

Since CentOS Stream and Fedora brances will exist in the same git system, I can see future Fedora CoreOS making use of slower-moving CentOS Stream branches where useful. But that's all to be worked out.

Re: CentOS Stream

#25

Post by mattdm »

bonzini wrote: post #23
zokier wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell it is more rolling than Debian testing because it wouldn't need to be occasionally frozen etc for releases

Would it still be frozen for a month or two when RHEL minor releases enter beta?

This is to be worked out, but I don't think so. I think there might be a frozen branch internally for that but the Stream branch should continue (and therefore might end up ahead of the beta).

Re: CentOS Stream

#26

Post by bubblethink »

jerf wrote: post #21
bubblethink wrote: post #10

>CentOS Stream is parallel to existing CentOS builds So why does regular CenOS exist in this day and age given its semi-official status under the RH umbrella ? Why doesn't RH just let people use RHEL without support ? Isn't it a massive waste of everyone's resources to rebuild everything and remove the trademarks? This seems like a more interesting future for CentOS to have as something different from baseline RHEL.

"Trademark" is the key word. If RedHad permits things out into the market with their trademarks all over them that they did not sell , then they are at risk of losing their trademark. Remember the primary purpose of a trademark is to identify your products as yours, and not let anyone else identify their products as yours. It's a contradiction in legal terms to have a trademark that is open source and anyone can use,…

You are misinterpreting what I said. I'm not talking about someone else impersonating RHEL. Canonical has no issue with its OS out in the market. RHEL could just be free to use (with updates but without other support) if they choose. This is how it used to be before it became RHEL anyway. Hence, CentOS was created as an outsider effort. Nowadays, CentOS is half inside RH, which is why the distinction is a bit silly.

However, upon thinking a bit more, their current strategy still makes business sense since RHEL and CentOS are silos. While the sets of users that pay for support and the ones that don't are different, if they started giving updates for free, it reduces their bargaining power in general and more so when time comes to renew support. Right now, if you stop paying for support, you cannot use RHEL any more and it won't get updates.

Re: CentOS Stream

#27

Post by jerf »

bubblethink wrote: post #26
jerf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Trademark" is the key word. If RedHad permits things out into the market with their trademarks all over them that they did not sell , then they are at risk of losing their trademark. Remember the primary purpose of a trademark is to identify your products as yours, and not let anyone else identify their products as yours. It's a contradiction in legal terms to have a trademark that is open source and anyone can use,…

You are misinterpreting what I said. I'm not talking about someone else impersonating RHEL. Canonical has no issue with its OS out in the market. RHEL could just be free to use (with updates but without other support) if they choose. This is how it used to be before it became RHEL anyway. Hence, CentOS was created as an outsider effort. Nowadays, CentOS is half inside RH, which is why the distinction is a bit silly.…

"RHEL could just be free to use (with updates but without other support) if they choose."

But not with that name.

Centos is as close as it can get.

Re: CentOS Stream

#28

Post by bubblethink »

jerf wrote: post #27
bubblethink wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I'm not talking about someone else impersonating RHEL. Canonical has no issue with its OS out in the market. RHEL could just be free to use (with updates but without other support) if they choose. This is how it used to be before it became RHEL anyway. Hence, CentOS was created as an outsider effort. Nowadays, CentOS is half inside RH, which is why the distinction is a bit silly.…

"RHEL could just be free to use (with updates but without other support) if they choose." But not with that name. Centos is as close as it can get.

I don't see the argument. Trademark has nothing to do with money. They don't lose their trademark if they give away something gratis. Canonical doesn't lose their trademarks just because you can get Ubuntu without paying them. Before RHEL, there was Red Hat Linux which was free to use.

Re: CentOS Stream

#29

Post by lunchables »

techdevangelist wrote: post #9
simias wrote: post #8

I like it, at least in theory. I develop some industrial software that runs on RHEL so being able to run somewhat similar distribution on my machine would be convenient. I tried running CentOS but it was too frustrating and limiting to deal with all the outdated packages on a dev machine. I suppose it will also be good for devs who just like the RHEL environment but don't need a super stable, outdated packages.

Agreed, and I’ve appreciated RH putting in effort like Software Collections to bring more modern versions of tools. The implementation may leave a bit to be desired of SCL packages but it could be worse with 3rd party RPMs.

>I’ve appreciated RH putting in effort like Software Collections to bring more modern versions of tools

Then you are going to love Modularity and Application Streams:

https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/11/15/rhel8-introduc...

Re: CentOS Stream

#30

Post by lunchables »

zokier wrote: post #15

I wonder what future Fedora will have if this new CentOS Stream will be stable enough for developer daily driver. 6 month release cycle of Fedora always felt awkwardly in-between, not having the stability of lts nor the continuity of rolling. I guess lot depends on details on how the packages flow to CentOS Stream, do they come from released Fedora versions or rawhide etc.

>6 month release cycle of Fedora always felt awkwardly in-between, not having the stability of lts nor the continuity of rolling

I run both Arch and Fedora, and since I think around Fedora 28 I've found that the upgrades are painless enough that it hasn't been much of an issue. The recommendation years ago was to do a full re-install of Fedora (every 6 months!) which was kind of a hassle, but these days its very simple.

Post reply on HN