281–290 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Debian also did this.
Irony being they (Ian and Deborah) split up, Ian quit Debian and worked for Sun (arguably a competitor back then), Docker, ..., and unfortunately committed suicide. The good news? Debian's still going strong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think CentOS sounds pretty unprofessional (although familiar), while Rocky Linux sounds unfamiliar although at least has a meaningful inspiration. I would bet it could come to be equally as esteemed as a product called "CentOS" (or even "Red Hat") eventually.
CentOS is Community Enterprise OS. Enterprise is right in the name. I just imagine going to the big boss and saying, "We're moving to Rocky Linux" is going to be a tougher sell based on the somewhat juvenile nature of someone's first name with a Y on the end of it.
I think, especially around Linux and open source projects, people care much less about naming than we tend to believe. Product reputation and the endorsement of IT/developers matters far more, in my experience, than a name.
I am really interested to know why should anyone go with this when Debian or Ubuntu LTS exist. The two later have not changed their policies in the last decade, and they have a clear path for upgrading. CentOS was always a clear choice for device drivers support, but I never understood the stability claims.
Agreed. I've used and advocated for RHEL/CentOS at work since version 5 because it was stable and predictible. That's gone now, and many of my users would prefer Ubuntu anwyay because it's what they use on their personal machines. So I'm making plans to move all our compute resources to Ubuntu LTS.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because CentOS on enterprise hardware is way more stable than Debian. I've worked for 6 years as a sysadmin for 300+ servers and we migrated everything from Debian to CentOS and our hardware related issues just went away. Overall we had much less trouble in our systems.
That's probably because lots of enterprise hardware is only ever tested and certified to work with RHEL, and in many cases only provided drivers in an RPM format that's intended to be installed in a RHEL-like environment.
I am really interested to know why should anyone go with this when Debian or Ubuntu LTS exist. The two later have not changed their policies in the last decade, and they have a clear path for upgrading. CentOS was always a clear choice for device drivers support, but I never understood the stability claims.
Most developers use Ubuntu in their laptops. Virtualized on Windows, but Ubuntu nonetheless.
Cloud
Centralisation
Corporations
and invest time, money and energy into a different Linix eco system
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 iden…