421–430 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RedHat has to permit the redistribution per the GPL. But there is nothing stating that your support contract can’t be cancelled if you do it. (I don’t have any first hand knowledge of this, just a guess).
Grsecurity also uses this 'loophole.' Seeing this scheme go mainstream is really disheartening; I feel that it really undermines the intent and social value of the GPL.
Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist distribution over something already existing, such as Oracle Linux? The most common argument (Oracle is evil and litigious. Therefore, using Oracle Linux will result in me being sued) honestly seems like FUD. All RHEL downstream distributions rebuild the same SRPMs that RHEL provides. Doing a quick comparison over some common packages (kernel, httpd, openssl, et…
In an earlier thread, some Oracle guy (not in the Oracle Linux team) mentioned that Oracle 8 actually builds from CentOS 8, rather than RHEL 8. I was a bit skeptical, since OL 8 usually releases much earlier than CentOS 8, but couldn't verify things either way. Someone else mentioned that RH actually only releases RHEL8 sources through CentOS8 sources. Again, I don't know how to verify, but if true they raise a lot o…
1. On an entitled system, enable the source repos and download the packages.
2. In your account online, you can download the SRPMs for individual packages.
3. In your account online you can download a minor version release iso of the SRPMs.
4. You can use https://git.centos.org to clone the actual RPM patches/spec files, and use the get_source.sh script from the centos-git-common repo to pull the package source tarballs from dist-git (useful for projects like the kernel that don’t use actual upstream as their source).
With CentOS stream (particularly C9S that will be launching mid 2021) and the switch over to GitLab which will happen in the future, everything will be out in the open in git form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share your disappointment. Out of 150+ comments so far, I believe there has not been a single technical comment about the actual work involved in building a version-pinned RHEL clone. Without any experience myself (beyond some kernel build maybe 10 years ago), I gathered (from https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 ) that the majority of work involves manually de-branding the RHEL sources. This apparently can't b…
RHEL source RPMs can be downloaded from http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise . According to your link, CentOS doesn't use the source RPMs since 7 but uses git repos instead. I don't know where the git repos are located, however, or if it is still possible to build the whole OS from just the SRPMs.
And in terms of rebuild ability, RHEL is not a self-hosting distribution. There are missing dependencies and packages that need to be built in order to create a fully serviceable distribution as Red Hat does not ship those packages.
Can someone explain why it’s not exceedingly simple to clone the existing Centos concept? Isn’t all the code that does the builds, artwork replacement, etc all open source? I would think that rebranding CentOS as Rocky is a rather trivial process of replatforming all the codebase and replacing any “Centos” with “Rocky”.
I mean, if you think about it, all that's really needed is for a "s/CentOS/Rocky/g" over all of the repositories. Then, the other 99% of the project is just waiting for the packages to rebuild and get sync'd on all of the mirrors that they could just will into existence with their minds.
Really, though, let's be honest here: If they weren't spending so much time writing up press releases and commenting on issues on GitHub, they probably could've already basically been done, the new package repositories could've been published and mirrored, and half of the CentOS 8 boxes out there could've already been migrated over.
--
EDIT: To be clear, I am not serious. I thought the question I was replying to was completely f##king absurd but chose to respond with sarcasm (it seemed less likely to result in a warning from @dang than my initial reply).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Living in a non-English speaking country certainly helps. Everybody around here is using `git` without realizing what it means. Same for CockroachDB.
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!
> I think the name and the logo is good. Don't listen to the people who just keep talking and not helping! Agreed. It's funny that people here are complaining "Rocky Linux" isn't a professional name and they won't be able to convince corporates clients to use it. Yet, there exists a billion dollar revenue company named "Red Hat" which clearly is a "professional" name.
— Gregory Kurtzer, Founder
I am not even sure what is going on.
1. The Name has a meaning. As shown in the quote above. And it is tribute / honour to a founder, from a previously well known project ( CentOS )
2. That meaning and the linkage in itself is extremely marketable. Especially to the target audience which are using CentOS.
3. This message explaining its meaning has been there since Day 1 according to Github history.
4. But more than half of the comments ( 150 ) are pissing on its name.
5. Which suggest that either a) They didn't actually click on the link and read anything or b) They dont like name for whatever reason.
6. I will be judgemental, and I am willing to bet those who are complaining about the name has never done any professional marketing or sales for any decent period of time.
Having said all that, they are still entitled to their opinion. But it also shows why product development and marketing based on surveying doesn't really work.
Can someone explain why it’s not exceedingly simple to clone the existing Centos concept? Isn’t all the code that does the builds, artwork replacement, etc all open source? I would think that rebranding CentOS as Rocky is a rather trivial process of replatforming all the codebase and replacing any “Centos” with “Rocky”.
In short, forking it is easy, but keep it attractive is not.
Happy to help wherever I can.
And if that applies to you, that's plenty of time for Rocky Linux to get rolling. Just a thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> better put the effort into an extra-stable-extra-LTS fork of Debian or even Ubuntu I've always thought of Debian LTS as basically the end all be all of Linux server OS stability (let's ignore the BSDs for this exercise), is the main draw of CentOS over that just the longer LTS period or is it also meaningfully more stable?
From what I understand, it's not just a matter of longer support, but also training. A lot of companies have/had mixed RHEL/CentOS environments, with RHEL on the machines they really want RH support for and CentOS on everything else to save money. Having a mixed RHEL/Debian environment would probably be a pain in the ass for all your sysadmins.
RedHat is a company that sells to other companies. Therefore it has to implement their linux and make decisions in a way that works well with how other enterprises think. Big companies aren't comfortable depending on "the community" to do the right thing for them.