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

Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#41

Post by mistrial9 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #26
Twirrim wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "problem" with Debian is the lifecycle. You get about a 12-24 months at most of security patches, and that's effectively it (the patching model after that is unreliable). That means you've got to allocate resources for upgrading/validating far more regularly than you would with other distributions. Depending on the size of your business, that could get really expensive and disruptive, for negligible benefit. Cano…

It should be noted, as many businesses are finding out, that you can't redistribute Ubuntu binaries or sources as-is, since they contain registered trademarks of Canonical. So, if you want to ship Ubuntu-based systems, you actually have to maintain your own version of all of their software stripped of the trademarks and re-compiled, or pay them. It seems Canonical is getting more interested in actually enforcing this…

learning from their new Masters in Redmond perhaps?

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#42

Post by tsimionescu »

maffydub wrote: post #31
tsimionescu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted, as many businesses are finding out, that you can't redistribute Ubuntu binaries or sources as-is, since they contain registered trademarks of Canonical. So, if you want to ship Ubuntu-based systems, you actually have to maintain your own version of all of their software stripped of the trademarks and re-compiled, or pay them. It seems Canonical is getting more interested in actually enforcing this…

Do you have any other references on this? It seems that it all hinges on what a "modified version" of Ubuntu is. Is redistributing their packages outside of a full disk image a modified version?

Don't have more sources , but my understanding is that Canonical considers that anything other than downloading an Ubuntu disk image from Canonical and hosting that on your own site constitutes a modification.

So, for example, if you take an Ubuntu image, change the default username and password, and re-export it as a new ISO, you have modified the Ubuntu image and can't redistribute it with the *buntu trademarks unless you make an agreement with Canonical. IANAL so don't take my word for it, but this is my honest understanding of what Canonical claims at least.

This does seem to be in agreement with the next item in the FAQ I linked - where they say that using an image that doesn't conform to the IPRights policy from someone else is not recommended since they can't guarantee that it will work with future updates or such - which any modification even of default settings could provoke.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#43

Post by _ea1k »

tsimionescu wrote: post #26
Twirrim wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "problem" with Debian is the lifecycle. You get about a 12-24 months at most of security patches, and that's effectively it (the patching model after that is unreliable). That means you've got to allocate resources for upgrading/validating far more regularly than you would with other distributions. Depending on the size of your business, that could get really expensive and disruptive, for negligible benefit. Cano…

It should be noted, as many businesses are finding out, that you can't redistribute Ubuntu binaries or sources as-is, since they contain registered trademarks of Canonical. So, if you want to ship Ubuntu-based systems, you actually have to maintain your own version of all of their software stripped of the trademarks and re-compiled, or pay them. It seems Canonical is getting more interested in actually enforcing this…

That is basically the same as what Red Hat used to do. Centos had to be very careful to avoid improper trademark usage in their rebuild.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#44

Post by pkulak »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #25

Good times for NixOS

I'm in the middle of switching now, from Silverblue. It's a lot of fun. The Arch wiki to do something will have you changing three files and restarting 2 services, while with NixOS you add a line to your config and you're done. And when something doesn't exist as a Nix package/config, it seems somewhat easy to build your self (compared to other package managers, at least). I realized there's no "game-devices" package last night, for example, but I was able to get this working in about an hour of Googling:

https://github.com/pkulak/dotfiles/blob/nix/nix/gamedevices....

Still not all the way in. Like, I'm still going to use Chezmoi for my home directory because I don't quite see the value-add of Home Manager, but who knows; maybe I'll be a super fan next year and move everything over.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#45

Post by Kwpolska »

brnt wrote: post #35
verdverm wrote: post #3

Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation

I don't understand all these CentOS forks: you're still dealing with Red Hat and reinforcing their ecosystem for free. What if those forks poured the effort behind Debian? A truly democratic distro that cannot pull rugs from under your feet.

If you want Debian, just use Debian. The idea behind CentOS and its successors is to have a free distro that is bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL, so that you can support users of your software who are on RHEL, or use software supported only on RHEL for free.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#46

Post by brazzledazzle »

NegativeK wrote: post #9
traceroute66 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now with the release of Debian 12 ("bookworm"), Debian is now sufficiently up-to-date for most users.

Has RHEL ever been about being up to date? I thought their selling point was maintaining ancient ass software.

They backport a lot so you can run your ancient-ass software knowing you have maintained security patches.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#47

Post by cratermoon »

verdverm wrote: post #3

Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation

> Red Hat got blue washed

I'm not sure I understand the term. Wikipedia says, "Bluewashing is term used to describe deceptive marketing that overstates a company's commitment to responsible social practices. It can be used interchangeably with the term greenwashing but has a greater focus on economic and community factors."

If I follow your usage, you're saying that Red Hat states they are committed to the ethics and social responsibilities of FOSS and the GPL but the actual practices violate those factors. If they are using GPL code but not releasing their code, then I would tend to agree, but IANAL.

Can you clarify a bit?

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#48

Post by havnagiggle »

drumhead wrote: post #32

The days of community and cooperation are coming to an end. Reddit ditches the relationship it had with it's users, and now Red Hat is turning into more of a proprietary software company. Did we take the spirit of the old internet for granted? Who's next I wonder.

I see lots of people standing up for good principles. The status quo is trying to cash in on complacency, but IMO it's just a catalyst for good things to come. People that know why they picked RHEL also know why they will be moving on.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#49

Post by CHY872 »

cratermoon wrote: post #47
verdverm wrote: post #3

Not sure these "options" are going to satisfy business risk analysis. We are looking into moving away from all things CentOS, RHEL, or projects like Rocky. It was going to be Rocky, but no more. Red Hat got blue washed and is now ruining their reputation

> Red Hat got blue washed I'm not sure I understand the term. Wikipedia says, "Bluewashing is term used to describe deceptive marketing that overstates a company's commitment to responsible social practices. It can be used interchangeably with the term greenwashing but has a greater focus on economic and community factors." If I follow your usage, you're saying that Red Hat states they are committed to the ethics and…

IBM = big blue. Red Hat were bought by IBM a few years back.

Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code

#50

Post by cratermoon »

Spivak wrote: post #15
verdverm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

debian most likely, still have to do a proper evaluation, it's a big lift to go from yum to apt though...

Yeah, the saddest bit about RHEL dying is that they really were the best distro by a wide margin. Redhat beat every piece of software into the RHEL way and what came out was an incredibly cohesive system. SELinux for all the years everyone cursed its name ended up working great in the end. All while being the most adventurous and ambitious distro in terms of adopting new userspace primitives.

RedHat was the first linux distro I ever installed on one of my own machines, so it has some sentimental value for me, but it's been a long time since I used it either personally or at work.
Post reply on HN