401–410 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. Things that come to mind: Rocky, the champion boxer who can "go the distance" and never gives up... the Rocky Mountains, which are, well, rocky and strong... Rocky Road ice cream, which tastes good. A zillion times better than trying to explain what a "Suse", an "Ubuntu", or a "Manjaro" is, and that's before talking about the various types of hat-based distros.
And, of course, Rocky and Bullwinkle. I want Bullwinkle Linux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Canonical needs the profit I'm fine with them getting more profit, as long as they stop ripping up the desktop.
I mean, I hate to say this, but have we considered that a big part of the reason RedHat has been profitable is because it doesn’t care about the desktop? And no, Fedora really doesn’t count. Ubuntu’s big thing back in 2004 was that it was a well-heeled founder (and company), coming in to actually put time and money into the desktop experience on Linux in an opinionated way (obv. not everyone agrees with those opinion…
Canonical made it easy to recommend linux as a desktop, but then have made it harder as time goes on, with controversies like Snap and the Amazon fiasco. I'm glad for what they have done, and wish them luck in the server space.
There are others who are now better positioned to pick up where Canonical left off on the desktop. ElementaryOS, Pop!_OS, Zorin, all of these are amazing projects that have picked up and pushed forward from where Canonical left.
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.
More likely there'll be a simple script to swap from CentOS (or RHEL) to Rocky.. Or they could have a "rocky-release" package with `Obsoletes: centos-release, redhat-release` and a `yum install https://rockylinux.org/rocky-release-8.2-1.noarch.rpm ; yum upgrade` is all that'd be required to swap...
TL;DR: should be very easy, but there's minor variations in methods that I doubt are finalized.
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.
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.
That's the whole point -- it's continually receiving updates that never break binary compatibility with existing apps/packages. For example, it's a safe target for vendors to target with binary packages, whereas CentOS stream won't be.
If the current RHEL release is 7.x then you can think of CentOS Stream as 7.(x+1). You don't have to worry about it suddenly being 8.0. Fedora plays the role of the future RHEL 8.0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> I would have thought that the GPL ensures that the customer can then freely redistribute them I'm actually surprised Red Hat has typically shipped SRPMS in bulk to it's customers. I think it's rare that customers would use them, and the GPL allows Red Hat to be far less accomodating. It allows you to charge for each copy of the source code you convey, it doesn't need to be in such a convenient form, it doesn't nee…
The requirement to distribute source means you have to provide the exact source for any binary that you distributed, for three years. And the source is defined as " the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A pointer to the upstream tarball plus a poorly organized directory with 58 patches in it isn't "the preferred form of the work ...". SRPMs are an easy way to make sure that you got it right,…
Interesting wrinkle in the GPL's written offer option: the offer must be valid for "any third party", not only direct customers. But, it's certainly possible for the included written offer to reference an email address or website that is unique to each paying customer, such that valid request coming from a third party would be traceable to the intermediate paying customer whose support contract would then be canceled by Red Hat.
Does anyone know if Red Hat does this kind of watermarking of the GPL written offers, or if a licensee could share the offer anonymously, leak-style, and not get caught by the support contract people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t defend cutting support for CentOS 8. That’s super shitty and I don’t really understand the move. The part I don’t think people really get is that if your goal was to have a fork of RHEL that was as close as possible to RHEL itself in absolute value that CentOS Stream is much better than CentOS is/was. CentOS always tracked far behind RHEL and now CentOS Stream will track closely in front of RHEL.
CentOS will be useless as a replacement for RHEL. Without the guarantee of binary compatibility, any CentOS Stream update may break your locally installed applications. And I only recall CentOS significantly trailing RHEL at the major version updates (e.g. 6 and 7). Other updates seem pretty timely, and the major version lag doesn't leave me vulnerable. I can see this being useful for developers who are building some…
Unless you're the kind of person who pinned to a specific minor version of CentOS (which isn't the default and not supported for very long) you can use CentOS Stream exactly the same as you currently are and it will be a strict improvement for you. Bugfixes, security updates, and new features will come to you before they're either batched for release in the next minor version of RHEL or back-ported to the current supported releases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me about how people don't even give CockroachDB a chance because of it's name. Every time it's mentioned on HN, people can't help but to bring up it's name.
I think Rocky is good. CockroachDB on the other hand is an awful name. Cockroaches are only associated with filth and are revolting to most people. Plus, you got that cock in the name which isn’t helping matters. You might think it’s obnoxious that people always point out the name without considering the product but tone deaf branding is a misstep and begs the question: what else are they screwing up if they could ge…