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

CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 139 posts

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#31

Post by api »

Frost1x wrote: post #8

Large corporation undermines a group of people to make a buck, news at 11... Businesses aren't your friends , repeat it with me, no matter how much propoganda they regularly spew out. Sometimes their goals may be temporarily aligned with yours in which case you can leverage their resources but never forget their goals can shift to be misaligned with yours at any point, making them a partial or direct enemy of your go…

Refusing to invest isn't undermining. It's just refusing to invest.

Undermining would be if RedHat did things to actively sabotage CentOS, spread untrue FUD about it, file lawsuits, etc.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#32

Post by proxycon »

interesting paragraph about the centos users, that most are anonymous who never call and never write. And if red hat is not trying to convert them to paying users, redhat doesnt get any value from them. Atleast now, with centos stream, these users will be sort of beta testers.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#33

Post by visualphoenix »

_joel wrote: post #21
gibs0ns wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunate name. To say something is rocky, is like saying it's unstable/unreliable.

Why, are the Rocky Mountains about to collapse? Also this is a sentimental name, chosen well imho. > "Thinking back to early CentOS days... My cofounder was Rocky McGaugh. He is no longer with us, so as a H/T to him, who never got to see the success that CentOS came to be, I introduce to you...Rocky Linux"

Interesting... I didn’t know about Rocky McGaugh, but I’ve definitely benefited from CentOS.

In attempting to research who Rocky was, I stumbled onto this post with a dead link[0]. Anyone know the story behind Rocky and TeamHPC?

[0] https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/news-155...

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#34

Post by turminal »

1996 wrote: post #4

Personally, I'm very happy the new RedHat showed their true colors so fast: it helped me decide to leave their ecosystem. EDIT: added "the new" to qualify the statement about RedHat, as indeed it's IBM at play. No amount of "kernel support" is worth the trouble of dealing with them.

Choices are though if you want to leave the RedHat ecosystem. Sure you can leave CentOS for Debian or Fedora for Ubuntu, but the entire Linux ecosystem is gradually becoming RedHat ecosystem.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#35

Post by jgilias »

daptaq wrote: post #15

If this can happen to CentOS, do we have to fear a comparable fate for Fedora? I've been using it for the last year, and it has been a nice change, but I wouldn't want it to die out because of strategy decisions. On the other hand, Fedora and RHEL don't seem to be in direct competition.

I don't think so. The important difference being that CentOS is/was downstream of RHEL. So, repacked RHEL to remove the branding, but otherwise exactly the same. This obviously competes with RHEL directly if you feel like you're able and willing to support the system on your own.

On the other hand, Fedora is upstream of RHEL. So, it serves an important role as a testing ground for stuff that may or may not end up in RHEL later down the line. I'm pretty sure you're safe, as it actually fills an essential role that is useful to Red Hat and that is very unlikely to eat into their main business.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#36

Post by alxlaz »

_joel wrote: post #30
HunterWare wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's because rocky shores were very hazardous to shipping, and a ship "on the rocks" was either close to, or in, immediate peril. The homage seems lovely, but doesn't (unfortunately) change the fact that to the vast majority of english speakers "rocky" means unstable/dangerous... In fact, one of the most common expressions referring to an unstable/bad relationship is "their relationship is on the rocks" or "they…

Well I'm British and whilst I understand the etymology of the phrase I really don't associate Rocky Linux with being an unstable distro, but each to their own.

I think it's safe to say that, between the primary sense of "rocky" being "made of rock" and elementary common sense, nobody does ;-).

People aren't going to think Rocky Linux is unstable for the same reasons why they don't think Apple computers rot if you leave them in the sun. Also, if a product called Red Hat Enterprise Linux was successful despite the name, I'm guessing it can't be that much of an obstacle for Rocky, either.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#37

Post by m4r71n »

Daho0n wrote: post #2

So, we finally see IBM showing its ugly face. No more CentOS.

Why are people assuming this is in any way IBM's doing? I know it's easy to say "IBM bad" but everything that has been said so far indicates this was a joint decision between Red Hat engineering and the CentOS project board members.

The cognitive dissonance in assuming every acquisition of a smaller company by a bigger one immediately results in the collapse of said small company is unreal.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#38

Post by whatever1 »

cube00 wrote: post #18

> CentOS is a sponsored project, we are the funding agent and we happen to also be a heavy contributor. It would be interesting if there was a way to determine if any other open source projects have this kind of large dependency on a single company. Track GitHub accounts doing the commits which are linked to orgs perhaps?

Open source is not free-of-charge to develop. Either a company is paying someone to contribute, or someone is dedicating voluntarily their own high-value time to contribute. Neither of the above is free.

Re: CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it

#39

Post by turminal »

api wrote: post #31
Frost1x wrote: post #8

Large corporation undermines a group of people to make a buck, news at 11... Businesses aren't your friends , repeat it with me, no matter how much propoganda they regularly spew out. Sometimes their goals may be temporarily aligned with yours in which case you can leverage their resources but never forget their goals can shift to be misaligned with yours at any point, making them a partial or direct enemy of your go…

Refusing to invest isn't undermining. It's just refusing to invest. Undermining would be if RedHat did things to actively sabotage CentOS, spread untrue FUD about it, file lawsuits, etc.

They slowly got the majority in the CentOS steering committee thus gaining all the power they needed to kill it. And then they did. There was no "you can still be CentOS but without our funding".
Post reply on HN