331–340 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that this decision was influenced by IBM (correlation doesn't equal causation).
There isn't any evidence anything causes anything else. Cartesian dualism is irrefutable. So for all we know we live in a world where IBM destroying everything they touch is purely the will of a malevolent daemon who wants to tarnish the good name of the company that enabled the holocaust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Red Hat publishes it's sources on https://git.centos.org . Those are then used to build CentOS Linux packages. Have you checked if this repo actually works as intended? Because I was wondering if the git repo has RHEL or CentOS sources (or both). So I tried to find out myself instead of just throwing the question out there. It went roughly as follows: - Let me check the sources of dracut (the RHEL installer) in htt…
The RPM SPEC file in that repo will have a pointer to the actual upstream sources for the package. This is a typical scenario -- they are not re-hosting all of the sources to build a Linux distro, just the build steps needed to pull, patch, and build upstream sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? We've colocated our servers for the past 18 or so years. We have about 40. The oldest is around 17 years old. Our newest server is 9 years old. Our average server age is probably around 13 years old. The most common failure that completely takes them out of commission is a popped capacitor on the motherboard. Never had it happen before the 10 year mark. Never had memory failure. Have had disk failures, but th…
The last time I worked with a ~8 year old server, it used to go through hard drives at a rate of 1 every 2 months. While we could replace them easily and it was RAID so there wasn't any data loss, I personally would've got fed up of replacing HDDs every couple of months. Also, most of my experience is with rented dedicated servers and they just give me a new one completely so I never really see if they're fully scrap…
Whats missing is an analysis of why CentOS failed. I think Rocky Linux needs to put out a plan how they will make themselves financially viable as we've had 3 high profile RHEL respins go down in the last 10 years. CentOS failed twice, it ran out of money in 2014 and was rescued back then by Redhat sponsership. Again in 2020. Another widely used RHEL respin was Scientific Linux which mothballed when RHEL 7 was releas…
Maybe it's a bit too obvious to spell it out, but 1. Red Hat Inc. does not want people to build and/or distribute gratis RHEL8 or clones. It would be trivial to just put the actual RHEL8 iso as an unsupported download on their ftp/www server and sell the support separately, like Oracle or Canonical do. Instead, they kept this ridiculous make work project called CentOS around, that involved non-trivial manual labor me…
But [they do](https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download). A subscription buys you updates and support. RHEL itself is free. In addition, considering that almost all of Red Hat's products are "upstream first", branding is generally a single additional RPM which changes some colors. It is _not_ hard to rebrand RHEL
> 2. It appears that building a legal RHEL8+ clone is quite a task, and I'm guessing the amount of work involved is largely controlled by Red Hat Inc. I.e., they can make running/maintaining a project like Rocky or others more and more expensive if they choose to. I believe they going to test the limits of how difficult they can make building from their sources within the boundaries of the GPL. If you think I'm wrong, just put up a mirror of the RHEL8 (not CentOS8) SRPMs and see how long it stays up. Clearly they're not acting in the spirit of the GPL, if they are in the letter.
The only case in which this has happened is changing the packaging of the kernel-sources SRPM so Oracle could not pick and choose particular patches, and instead had to deal with a single massive diff to make stuff like kpatch work. The "expensive" part of building an EL8 clone is standing up a bunch of Koji builders. That isn't necessary either, strictly. It just makes "turn this SRPM into an RPM and combine it with a bunch of others into a temporary repo we can dogfood/release" easier. As always, it comes down to cost.
> 3. Given the previous point, I believe a project like Rocky is a losing proposition. If the "community" really values enterprise stability so much, better put the effort into an extra-LTS fork of Debian or even Ubuntu, and preparing for transition away from RHEL. Or just pay up, if you really believes the RHEL stability is so valuable. Clone projects are by necessity extremely dependent on actions of Red Hat Inc which has largely opposite interests. I don't know why people would volunteer for that.
The problem with this, broadly, is that the "community" is comprised of a lot of Red Hat-employed engineers. This idea that Linux is a bunch of "community" people that RH/IBM/whomever siphon off is completely fallacious. Sure, they exist, but the vast majority of Linux development is commercial. Some bug is reported in a downstream product that a customer pays for, or a feature is requested by a major customer (or the technical debt involved in maintaining something gets too high, or whatever), and professional engineers who are being paid to work on it write the patches upstream. Once they're merged, they get picked downstream into some kind of productized version.
Given that most of that happens in Fedora (or OKD, or oVirt, or whatever upstream is for a given product), CentOS being run by RH was pretty much the same embrace+extend+extinguish philosophy. The vast majority of RH engineers run Fedora, or an EL clone, and that isn't gonna change. What's different is that RHEL is no longer a growing revenue stream, and CentOS users didn't convert to RHEL at a large rate (or they reported CentOS bugs against RHEL, which is strictly against Red Hat's support policy).
What customers values is indemnity and the ability to point their finger at someone external, plus normal stuff like a security response team and responsible+timely disclosure during major CVEs. What the community value(d|s) is the ability to run commercial software that the vendor supports on RHEL without actually _paying_ for RHEL. It's not that they value 'enterprise stability'. It's that they value being able to run SAS or whatever without hacking the hell out of the installer. That isn't offered by an extra-LTS fork of Debian or Ubuntu, and no amount of complaining on Hackernews is gonna change that.
I think the name and the logo is good. Don't listen to the people who just keep talking and not helping! Good to see that CentOS cofonder picked this up and now became a founder of Rocky Linux. This shows dedication and rock solid background. Rocky Linux will be a project to follow, help and use in production environment. Thank you for all your hard work!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s hard to continually fund any project defined by its users’ abhorrence of compensation.
I think Ubuntu has a decent business plan, charging people $225/yr to extend support from 5 to 10 years. I would happily pay that in order to avoid having to migrate as often. CentOS just gave everything away for free and then is wondering why they're not making any money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fedora is desktop-focused. RHEL and CentOS are server-focused. I think there is a place for both. But who knows, maybe IBM will discontinue one, or both.
RHEL and CentOS are both server and desktop. The desktop is just not flashy or shiny or bleeding edge. The default install is/was Gnome 3 shell (For RHEL7 and CentOS 7). I am not sure if this is still the case, but Redhat used to require 100% of its employees to use RHEL Workstation as the desktop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RHEL and its derivatives are the only linux distribution which maintains binary compatibility over 10+ years while getting not only security updates but feature additions when possible. This is something I don't think the wider community understands, nor do they understand the incredible amount of work it takes to back-port major kernel/etc features while maintaining a stable kernel ABI as well as userspace ABI. Ever…
That's the value pitch for RHEL, where it's understandable — whether or not you like the enterprise IT model of avoiding upgrades as long as possible, there's a ton of money in it. I think the gap is the question of how many people there are who want enterprise-style lifetimes but don't actually want support. If you're running servers which don't need a paid support contract, upgrading Debian every 5 years is hardly…
But lifetimes are support. Support isn't just, or even primarily, about making a phone call and saying "Help, it's broken." After all, there's nothing keeping someone from taking a snapshot of a codebase and running it unchanged for 10 years. Probably not a good idea if you're connected to the network, but certainly possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm wary of doing that, because in near future, Microsoft is likely to take over Canonical. You don't put all eggs into one basket. Always plan for escape, always have a plan B. Preferably one not relying on crystal-balling whims of a for-profit corporation. Rocky Linux, Alpine Linux, Debian, Gentoo, BSD, etc.
This is not the first time I've seen this prediction. What is its basis?
Whats missing is an analysis of why CentOS failed. I think Rocky Linux needs to put out a plan how they will make themselves financially viable as we've had 3 high profile RHEL respins go down in the last 10 years. CentOS failed twice, it ran out of money in 2014 and was rescued back then by Redhat sponsership. Again in 2020. Another widely used RHEL respin was Scientific Linux which mothballed when RHEL 7 was releas…