Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

Post by tuldia » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 12:57 AM UTC

em500 wrote: post #332

quicklyfrozen wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So where do I actually get this upstream (RHEL8) source of say dracut? Because I was reacting to the comment "Red Hat publishes it's sources on https://git.centos.org . Those are then used to build CentOS Linux packages."

Post by marcolussetti » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 1:00 AM UTC

e40 wrote: post #198

Anyone believe that I will, at some point, be able to point my CentOS 8.x configuration at the Rocky Linux repo and just upgrade to it? That would be ideal. I realized GPG keys will need to be replaced, etc.

Post by dralley » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 1:14 AM UTC

em500 wrote: post #326

CoconutPilot wrote: post #296

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…

Post by dralley » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 1:21 AM UTC

ilikeerp wrote: post #336

cpncrunch wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I charge more per hour for my consulting, I had a bottle of wine that cost about that last week for dinner. What revenue do they actually get out of that model?

Post by quicklyfrozen » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #251

gvb wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CentOS and RHEL will only be exactly the same at the moment when RHEL is a point-in-time fork of CentOS. As soon ad RHEL forks from CentOS, CentOS will roll forward and will no longer be exactly the same as RHEL. Previously, CentOS was a rebuild of RHEL. In between RHEL releases, CentOS was exactly the same as RHEL. When RHEL had a release/fix/backpoint, CentOS trailed until it was rebuilt from the new RHEL source. T…

You act like RHEL 7.1 is a fixed artifact — it’s constantly receiving updates, security patches, and backports. And CentOS always trails behind on those updates so it’s never exactly the same as RHEL either. This change makes CentOS so much closer to RHEL that it’s weird that people are acting like the opposite is happening.