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

261–270 of 555 posts

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

#261

Post by _hyn3 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #209
na85 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of this drivel. It's called Linux because GNU is awful at naming things. The name "Gahnoo" is too awkward to pronounce and "Gahnoo plus Linux" is too long. People shorten names for convenience. Deal with it or come up with a better name than GNU.

First, obvious troll is obvious. Second, complaining that the "GNU" part is awkward to pronounce when it's a regular English word unlike Linux amuses me. Linus Unix to Linux will forever haunt free software.

Right, infamous copypasta... forgive the pedantry, but the English word "gnu" (referring to the mammal) is pronounced "noo", while the non-English word "GNU" is pronounced "gah-noo"[0], as OP correctly pointed out.

0. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/pronunciation.en.html

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

#262

Post by _jal »

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…

> Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist

Devil's response: nobody cares if you do. A lot of people know why they want it; the answer will in many cases be that it will fill the same niche and not be controlled by a shitty company. (If you think calling Oracle shitty is FUD, unprofessional or similar, that's fine: see 'Devil's response', above.)

It will stand or fall on its own, as a result of many different peoples' choices. For now, it is enough that something is growing in the niche from which Centos was uprooted.

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

#263

Post by effie »

deckard1 wrote: post #181
chousuke wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "don't touch it if it's not broken" philosophy is fundamentally at odds with an internet-connected machine. You either need to upgrade or unplug (from the internet). There are still places out there that are running WindowsNT or DOS even. Because they have applications which simply won't run anywhere else or need to talk to ancient hardware that runs over a parallel port or some weird crap like that. These machin…

"don't touch it if it's not broken" is not a philosophy, it is a slogan. Some people say it, because it is preferable to them to run old unpatched vulnerable systems rather than spend resources on upgrades. That's just a reality. Some care about up-to-date, some don't. Most people don't really care about security, and some of those don't care even about CYA security theatre. If they did care about security, they wouldn't run unverified software downloaded from the Internet.

Why Docker has anything to do with this discussion?

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

#264

Post by netzvieh »

em500 wrote: post #190
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…

I share your disappointment. Out of 150+ comments so far, I believe there has not been a single technical comment about the actual work involved in building a version-pinned RHEL clone. Without any experience myself (beyond some kernel build maybe 10 years ago), I gathered (from https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 ) that the majority of work involves manually de-branding the RHEL sources. This apparently can't b…

> 1. Where do the upstream RHEL sources live? CentOS sources are in https://vault.centos.org/8.3.2011/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/, but where do they get them upstream? I believe they're only available to RHEL subscribers, does this give RH a way to block clones?

Red Hat publishes it's sources on https://git.centos.org. Those are then used to build CentOS Linux packages.

In the future they'll do their development there, and build CentOS Stream and Red Hat Packages from there.

See also: https://crunchtools.com/before-you-get-mad-about-the-centos-...

> Remember, the source code at git.centos.org is basically read only, downstream code from RHEL. That’s how Red Hat complies with the GPL. Technically we go above and beyond because we are only legally required to provide code to customers, and not required to provide code for BSD/Apache/etc licensed code, only attribution.

Regarding question 2, CentOS has a somewhat custom build system for each major version afaik, for 8 this would be https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/

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

#265

Post by flatline »

CivBase wrote: post #255
teknopaul wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM. Rocky will not be be IBM.

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

I always thought it was more than a little incestuous for RH to acquire and maintain the RH clone, but it did fill a niche.

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

#266

Post by niea_11 »

bayindirh wrote: post #234
niea_11 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say that they depend on CentOS, are they using something CentOS-specific. Centos is supposed to be compatible with RHEL (minus the logos/trademarks) and shouldn't have additional fixes or features. ("bug for bug, feature for feature" <= centos wording :)). No?

CentOS don't have to have a specific feature to be preferred over RH. Being free in both beer and speech is important enough. People (incl. us) install 1000+ server clusters with CentOS. The absence of licensing fee allows us to buy more servers. The absence of licensing fee allows "small researchers" to have a verified platform to work with. If you don't have a verified platform, you cannot trust your results. CentO…

Thanks for your explanation.

I think I understand a little better your point of view. CentOS became so important for the HPC community that most software is now validated against it. So even if RHEL itself were to become free (as in beer), people won't switch to it (or at least be reluctant).

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

#267

Post by effie »

chousuke wrote: post #122
unethical_ban wrote: post #33

Earlier 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…

I think it is mostly about running servers (standard services that don't change much) for 10 years (and more). You don't need 10 year LTS distribution for building a product. You take whatever version of OS distribution you like, secure local copy should the upstream disappear, and vendor it into your product and never deviate from it.

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

#268

Post by em500 »

thr0w3345 wrote: post #253
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.

Obvious next question: what drove the CentOS devs to sell to Redhat. From previous discussions, I understood that it came down to lack of resources / devs to maintain and support it. So OP's question is on point: what will Rocky Linux do to avoid a similar misfortune?

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

#269

Post by bayindirh »

niea_11 wrote: post #266
bayindirh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CentOS don't have to have a specific feature to be preferred over RH. Being free in both beer and speech is important enough. People (incl. us) install 1000+ server clusters with CentOS. The absence of licensing fee allows us to buy more servers. The absence of licensing fee allows "small researchers" to have a verified platform to work with. If you don't have a verified platform, you cannot trust your results. CentO…

Thanks for your explanation. I think I understand a little better your point of view. CentOS became so important for the HPC community that most software is now validated against it. So even if RHEL itself were to become free (as in beer), people won't switch to it (or at least be reluctant).

Exactly.

My all personal systems are Debian, however when I install something research related, it's always CentOS. There's no question. I even manage a couple of research servers at my former university. They're CentOS as well.

Moreover service (web, git, documentation, etc.) servers are CentOS too to keep systems uniform even if there's no requirement. So it powers the whole ecosystem, not the compute foundation. That's a big iceberg.

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

#270

Post by Alupis »

> The CentOS project recently announced a shift in strategy for CentOS. Whereas previously CentOS existed as a downstream build of its upstream vendor (it receives patches and updates after the upstream vendor does), it will be shifting to an upstream build (testing patches and updates before inclusion in the upstream vendor.

Wow, I haven't been following this very closely - but isn't that Fedora they're describing? At least... traditionally...

Fedora was upstream, RHEL was stabalized in the middle, and CentOS was downstream - regarding patch releases and features, etc.

Is Fedora going away too?

Post reply on HN