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

SUSE is forking RHEL

suse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–307 of 307 posts

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#301

Post by EdwardDiego »

freeone3000 wrote: post #80
silisili wrote: post #4

I'm continually baffled that so many companies follow RHEL compatibility to this day. I've been using Linux for nearly 30 years. Admining as a profession for at least a quarter of that. 20 years ago, it made a ton of sense. Today, less so. The 'stable version but we backport patches' mantra doesn't make any sense today. I can't even describe how many things that have broken that you can't even find an answer for beca…

> I can't figure out why RHEL compat is so desirable. Hey, here’s a comprehensive guide complete with commands, expected outcomes, and side effects of each command for setting up a Windows Domain using an RHEL domain controller: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_single... Oh, that’s for 7.5? One that’s 15 years old and no longer under standard support? It still works! Wait, but you’re a new custom…

Yep, one thing I really liked at RH was the legion of professional technical writers they hired. The ones I worked with were the kinda unicorns that combined "understands code and complex systems" with "can express complex technical ideas simply and comprehensively".

That, IMO, is a killer feature. I really miss when consuming docs from commercial providers these days.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#302

Post by 0dayz »

interactinghash wrote: post #100
0dayz wrote: post #13

This is very positive news, I wonder though how far will compatible mean? My biggest problem with opensuse is the lack of cockpit support and integration that RHEL has. Also that they use apparmor instead of selinux as default, I wish that selinux would become the standard MAC, with really good tools (cli and gui alike) for handling selinux policies.

SUSE is working on making SELinux the default - and it already is on SLE Micro for example

That I look forward to, if they can make SELinux and cockpit work flawlessly I'm finally going to have the perfect distro I ever wanted (although I'll admit I'm not sure if NetworkManager vs SUSE own network manager is better).

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#303

Post by raincom »

grey_earthling wrote: post #299
LeFantome wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SUSE might do that. Rocky, Alma, and Oracle cannot do that because they are never going to write the documentation, do the testing, or provide the certifications that make a RHEL release a RHEL release. The point releases of a RHEL fork are meaningless unless they are identical to RHEL. If you cannot get real RHEL, your better off with CentOS Stream than an incompatible point release.

> they are never going to write the documentation, do the testing, or provide the certifications that make a RHEL release a RHEL release. That's precisely what I'm suggesting they attempt. > The point releases of a RHEL fork are meaningless unless they are identical to RHEL. Why? (I'm not trying to be belligerent here — I genuinely don't understand why.) > If you cannot get real RHEL, your better off with CentOS Stre…

CentOS Stream and RHEL diverge. (a) many bug fixes are back ported to RHEL 9.x, but not to the Stream 9 at the same time (b) they fix bugs right away on RHEL 9.x, but delay them for a long time (c) some packages in the Stream are from the latest upstream, and many major versions ahead of the same in RHEL 9.x

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#304

Post by pas »

grey_earthling wrote: post #297
pas wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big big big enterprises outsource IT to big big enterprise vendors, and they benefit a lot from standardizing on RHEL, because they employ people, who benefit a lot from documentation and tutorials and so on.

I would have thought that all the documentation and tutorials would apply equally to CentOS Stream — as I understand it, the only real difference is the schedule for releasing minor patches and bugfixes. Is it the case that RHEL provides vastly better, more detailed changelogs for minor/bugfix updates (even to the public without an RHEL subscription) and that's what makes so much difference that an exactly-compatible…

Bigbigbig enterprises have bigbig compliance departments, and audits, and so on.

RHEL is entrenched in that world, perfect for IBM (which also lives off those clients).

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#305

Post by BizarroLand »

woleium wrote: post #295
BizarroLand wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done a few of those RHEL/CentOS/Ubuntu moves myself, and even though it was a pain I'm still somewhat impressed over how painless the actual move was when I had good documentation and also still terrified of what it feels like to try to transition undocumented boxes. I dislike windows and the M$ ecosystem but as far as server management for undocumented servers it's much easier to deal with them than for Linux s…

so what you're saying is nothing business critical runs on Windows?

No. Just that Windows servers are much easier to navigate to find what files and systems are running.

With Linux systems, sure, you can check chron and top and find what is running and where it is but it's a bit more unwieldy than the windows GUI, plus you don't always have a full list of the file and folder permissions and getting a full list of those requirements for whichever softwares are accessing them.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#306

Post by woleium »

BizarroLand wrote: post #305
woleium wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so what you're saying is nothing business critical runs on Windows?

No. Just that Windows servers are much easier to navigate to find what files and systems are running. With Linux systems, sure, you can check chron and top and find what is running and where it is but it's a bit more unwieldy than the windows GUI, plus you don't always have a full list of the file and folder permissions and getting a full list of those requirements for whichever softwares are accessing them.

Oh, I see, that makes sense.

Re: SUSE is forking RHEL

#307

Post by worthless-trash »

riku_iki wrote: post #104
bandrami wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our contract with the Air Force required that we document guarantees from every parts vendor for the servers we built for them that they would keep making those parts for at least a decade. They also demanded RHEL exclusively. It's a great example of how extreme stability is more important than any other question in a lot of business decisions.

> from every parts vendor for the servers we built for them that they would keep making those parts for at least a decade and do main vendors (amd, intel, nvidia, whoever build motherboards) provide guarantees that they continue production of specific version of product for the decade? > They also demanded RHEL exclusively. It's a great example of how extreme stability is there evidence that rhel is more stable than…

> is there evidence that rhel is more stable than debian?

Debian Long Term Support (LTS) is a project to extend the lifetime of all Debian stable releases to (at least) 5 years (from https://wiki.debian.org/LTS)

RHEL 7 is 10 years, and probably a little longer after their recently announced EL7 lifecycle extension ( from: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/ )

Post reply on HN