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

Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 555 posts

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#251

Post by Spivak »

gvb wrote: post #240
Spivak wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so misinformed it's funny. CentOS and RHEL will now be down to the compiler flags compatible since RHEL minor releases will now just be point-in-time forks of CentOS with security fixes and backports from, you guessed it, CentOS.

CentOS and RHEL will only be exactly the same at the moment when RHEL is a point-in-time fork of CentOS. As soon ad RHEL forks from CentOS, CentOS will roll forward and will no longer be exactly the same as RHEL. Previously, CentOS was a rebuild of RHEL. In between RHEL releases, CentOS was exactly the same as RHEL. When RHEL had a release/fix/backpoint, CentOS trailed until it was rebuilt from the new RHEL source. T…

You act like RHEL 7.1 is a fixed artifact — it’s constantly receiving updates, security patches, and backports. And CentOS always trails behind on those updates so it’s never exactly the same as RHEL either.

This change makes CentOS so much closer to RHEL that it’s weird that people are acting like the opposite is happening.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#252

Post by b0rsuk »

tus88 wrote: post #151
hnarn wrote: post #124

The 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…

What's wrong with the name? It seems fairly uncontroversial to me.

It can also be associated with a 'rocky ride'. The name doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#253

Post by thr0w3345 »

CivBase wrote: post #248

I knew what CentOS was, but never followed it because I've never personally had use for it. Still, I appreciate what it did and was glad to have it as an option should I ever need a super stable distro in the future. That said, I think the FAQ is missing an answer for a critical question: What ultimately drove CentOS to its regrettable fate and what will Rocky Linux do to avoid a similar misfortune?

Redhat acquired it, then ibm acequired redhat and then game over.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#254

Post by teknopaul »

em500 wrote: post #206
kondbg wrote: post #179

Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist distribution over something already existing, such as Oracle Linux? The most common argument (Oracle is evil and litigious. Therefore, using Oracle Linux will result in me being sued) honestly seems like FUD. All RHEL downstream distributions rebuild the same SRPMs that RHEL provides. Doing a quick comparison over some common packages (kernel, httpd, openssl, et…

In an earlier thread, some Oracle guy (not in the Oracle Linux team) mentioned that Oracle 8 actually builds from CentOS 8, rather than RHEL 8. I was a bit skeptical, since OL 8 usually releases much earlier than CentOS 8, but couldn't verify things either way. Someone else mentioned that RH actually only releases RHEL8 sources through CentOS8 sources. Again, I don't know how to verify, but if true they raise a lot o…

RHEL is open source and always will be.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#255

Post by CivBase »

teknopaul wrote: post #250
CivBase wrote: post #248

I knew what CentOS was, but never followed it because I've never personally had use for it. Still, I appreciate what it did and was glad to have it as an option should I ever need a super stable distro in the future. That said, I think the FAQ is missing an answer for a critical question: What ultimately drove CentOS to its regrettable fate and what will Rocky Linux do to avoid a similar misfortune?

IBM. Rocky will not be be IBM.

I don't think CentOS ever intended to be IBM either.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#256

Post by shawnz »

ajsfoux234 wrote: post #200
haolez wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle Linux might change the rules in the future. It kind of just happened with CentOS :)

Well, the same thing might happen with Rocky Linux as well :)

It's unlikely they would sabotage their only competitive advantage though, whereas Oracle has lots of reasons to maintain an enterprise linux distribution besides just succeeding CentOS.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#257

Post by viraptor »

throwaway092835 wrote: post #214
viraptor wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from the long support, RHEL based distros also give you built in selinux support. Apparmor exists, but it's not comparable in features and existing policies.

selinux is provided by Debian as well and it's hardly a popular (or very useful) feature compared to daemon and application sandboxing.

The module itself is provided, yes. The policies are not really integrated into Debian systems. You can adjust them to work, but it's way more work than using ready ones on a RHEL-like system.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#258

Post by boogies »

wayneftw wrote: post #213
hnarn wrote: post #124

The 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…

Pffft. Imagine coming to a forum where people commonly give their opinions only to accuse them of "whining" and "entitlement" when they simply give an opinion that you don't like. As if questioning whether a project name is any good suddenly equates to an application to be an "idea guy" or a logo designer. If you don't like the majority opinion about something as trivial as a name, stop visiting this forum. Does that…

Down to death your comment goes. That’s what you get for complaining about complaining about complaining about the name. Because obviously complaining about complaining adds much to the discussion, while complaining about those complaints about complaining draw away from it⸮

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#259

Post by moonbug »

hibbelig wrote: post #178
Karunamon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My read on that is that you should be treating your servers as disposable and ephemeral as possible. Long uptimes mean configuration drift, general snowflakery, difficulties patching, patches getting delayed/not done, and so forth. Ideally you'd never upgrade your software in the usual way. You'd simply deploy the new version with automated tooling and tear down the older.

I don't get this. If there are many servers, sure. But if it's something that runs on a single box without problem, why on earth should I tear it down? Also, "running a server for ten years" does not need to mean that it has ten years of uptime. I think that wasn't meant.

Ten years of uptime seems neither an unreasonable nor unattainable requirement. There's more to computers than mayfly web startups.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#260

Post by nickysielicki »

teknopaul wrote: post #250
CivBase wrote: post #248

I knew what CentOS was, but never followed it because I've never personally had use for it. Still, I appreciate what it did and was glad to have it as an option should I ever need a super stable distro in the future. That said, I think the FAQ is missing an answer for a critical question: What ultimately drove CentOS to its regrettable fate and what will Rocky Linux do to avoid a similar misfortune?

IBM. Rocky will not be be IBM.

The most frustrating thing about this is that Redhat was making a profit before IBM bought them. They had existed for 20 some years on a business model that business people didn’t understand, and they were able to do that because they understood what open source would become and how they could play a role in that.

One of the things that YC is always talking about is that founders looking for ideas should look to identify situations where most people think it’s going to turn out one way, but most people are wrong and it’s actually going to turn out another way. In the context of the late 90s, where virtually all software was proprietary, they bet on open source software and support plans, and made a sustainable company on it. They contributed to open source so that they would have the expertise, gave all the software away for free, and then sold the expertise through support plans.

And then the business people came along and they’re showing a deep misunderstanding of why Redhat was able to sell support plans in the first place. People on RHEL are going to stay on RHEL, but people on CentOS — the market of people who are not paying customers but could theoretically become customers, are almost certainly going to go to Canonical. This will kill Redhat.

Post reply on HN