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

Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#21

Post by CookieCrisp »

verdverm wrote: post #12
LordKeren wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you share the top contenders for replacements?

debian most likely, still have to do a proper evaluation, it's a big lift to go from yum to apt though...

I started doing this yesterday, and with chatgpt 4’s help it hasn’t been as bad as I feared - I’ve been able to dump Ansible playbooks into it and ask for Debian package names/alternatives - obviously it depends on what you have, and my needs are definitely not nearly as demanding as they will be for a lot of companies, but I have around 100 servers that I will be switching over, and what I feared would be a mammoth task is now looking like something I can knock out in a couple weeks

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#23

Post by Tepix »

linuxftw wrote: post #17

Red Hat currently releases all sources as if they were GPL sources, but that may stop in the future. EG, an Apache 2 licensed project, they're under no obligation to release the source, but they currently choose to. That will be the next move for the RHEL sources IMO. They'll probably stop releasing all non-GPL licensed code from RHEL proper.

RedHat is unlikely to do that.

After all, why would anyone still use RedHat if their competetive advantage (i.e. open source) is lost?

As a RedHat customer i want to be able to take their packages (which include the open source software and their changes to it) and rebuild them from source with both their and my patches whenever i feel like doing so.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#24

Post by techwizrd »

verdverm wrote: post #3

Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation

This has definitely spooked us as well. We have numerous images based on our rocky base image, so we're looking at what moving away from all things RHEL, Rocky, etc. as well.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#26

Post by tsimionescu »

Twirrim wrote: post #20
traceroute66 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now with the release of Debian 12 ("bookworm"), Debian is now sufficiently up-to-date for most users.

The "problem" with Debian is the lifecycle. You get about a 12-24 months at most of security patches, and that's effectively it (the patching model after that is unreliable). That means you've got to allocate resources for upgrading/validating far more regularly than you would with other distributions. Depending on the size of your business, that could get really expensive and disruptive, for negligible benefit. Cano…

It should be noted, as many businesses are finding out, that you can't redistribute Ubuntu binaries or sources as-is, since they contain registered trademarks of Canonical.

So, if you want to ship Ubuntu-based systems, you actually have to maintain your own version of all of their software stripped of the trademarks and re-compiled, or pay them. It seems Canonical is getting more interested in actually enforcing this, I believe they mostly ignored it for a long time now.

Debian seems like a much simpler alternative than doing all this.

Source: https://ubuntu.com/legal/intellectual-property-policy

> Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries [emphasis mine]. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below).

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#27

Post by yndoendo »

hospitalJail wrote: post #5
verdverm wrote: post #3

Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation

I havent been following the saga, just learned about it last week. Was Red Hat losing money? Or they wanted more money?

IBM sees economic utility as just making money. They don't see the utility of name branding and ease of transition.

For example, I was using CentOS for prototype development. No way would I be able to get RHEL for this. CentOS allowed for not having to hassle with development license management with RHEL. Meaning more time spent on trying to get something work vs handling business to business logistics. This way, if the prototype was deemed acceptable, I could hand off OS management to IT and they could handle B2B logistics.

Now I no longer prototype with an easily transferable RHEL style OS. Means IBM just reduced their probability of receiving future support contracts. This is where IBM lacks understanding of economic utility.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#28

Post by cramjabsyn »

Twirrim wrote: post #20
traceroute66 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now with the release of Debian 12 ("bookworm"), Debian is now sufficiently up-to-date for most users.

The "problem" with Debian is the lifecycle. You get about a 12-24 months at most of security patches, and that's effectively it (the patching model after that is unreliable). That means you've got to allocate resources for upgrading/validating far more regularly than you would with other distributions. Depending on the size of your business, that could get really expensive and disruptive, for negligible benefit. Cano…

I tend to agree, if Debian embraced a longer term support model it would attract a lot of enterprise deployments.

RHEL is something like 10 years while Debian is more like 2, 3 if you push it.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#29

Post by tsimionescu »

Tepix wrote: post #23
linuxftw wrote: post #17

Red Hat currently releases all sources as if they were GPL sources, but that may stop in the future. EG, an Apache 2 licensed project, they're under no obligation to release the source, but they currently choose to. That will be the next move for the RHEL sources IMO. They'll probably stop releasing all non-GPL licensed code from RHEL proper.

RedHat is unlikely to do that. After all, why would anyone still use RedHat if their competetive advantage (i.e. open source) is lost? As a RedHat customer i want to be able to take their packages (which include the open source software and their changes to it) and rebuild them from source with both their and my patches whenever i feel like doing so.

Their competitive advantage compared to whom, Windows? Their competitive advantage compared to other Linux distros or to the BSDs is enterprise support, not being open source (all of them are). Apple doesn't even sell their OS at all. So who are you comparing RH to?

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#30

Post by [deleted] »

LordKeren wrote: post #6
verdverm wrote: post #3

Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation

Can you share the top contenders for replacements?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN