Live data from Hacker News

Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

github.com

431–440 of 555 posts

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CentOS don't have to have a specific feature to be preferred over RH. Being free in both beer and speech is important enough. People (incl. us) install 1000+ server clusters with CentOS. The absence of licensing fee allows us to buy more servers. The absence of licensing fee allows "small researchers" to have a verified platform to work with. If you don't have a verified platform, you cannot trust your results. CentO…

In 2020 why aren't you packaging your apps as containers? Yeah, it sucks that ibm killed centos, but depending on some single distro's version of libm or libc or whatever is not their fault it's yours. Doing your job properly in this case means shipping you deps with your application, and the easiest way to do that these days is with containers.. Christ; it's either the 90s or kindergarten..

Because a cluster doesn't work like a normal computer.

Your users don't see the nodes. They submit jobs and wait for their turn in the cluster. A sophisticated resource planner / job scheduler tries to empty the queue while optimizing job placement so the system usage can be maximized as much as possible.

Also, users' jobs work in under their own users. You need to isolate them. Giving them access to docker or any root level container engine is completely removing UNIX user security and isolation model and running in Windows95 mode. This also compromises system security since everyone is practically root at that point. Singularity is user-mode and its usage is increasing but then comes the next point.

Performance and hardware access is critical in HPC. GPU and special HBAs like Infiniband requires direct access from processes to run at their maximum performance or work at all. GPU access is much more important than containerizing workloads. Docker GPU is here because nVidia wanted to containerize AI workloads on DGX/HGX systems. These technologies are maturing on HPC now.

In performance front, consider the following: If main loop of your computation loses a second due to these abstractions, considering this loops run thousand times per core on many nodes, lost productivity is eye-watering. My simple application computes 1.7 million integrations per second per core. So, for working on long problems, increasing this number is critical.

Last but not the least, some of the applications run on these systems are developed for 20 years now. So, these applications are not some simple code bases which are extremely tidy and neat. You can't know/guess how these applications behave before running them inside a container. As I've said, you need to be able to trust what you have too. So, we scientists and HPC administrators tend to walk slowly but surely.

Doing my job properly on the HPC side means my cluster works with utmost efficiency and bulletproof user isolation so people can trust the validity of their results and integrity of their privacy. Doing my job properly on the development side means that my code builds with minimum effort and with maximum performance on systems I support. HPC software is not a single service which works like a normal container workload. We need to evolve our software to run with minimum problems with containers and containers should evolve to accommodate our workloads, workflows and meet our other needs.

The cutting edge technology doesn't solve every problem with same elegance. Also we're not a set of lazy academics or sysadmins just because our systems work more traditionally.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#432

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”.

It's also an opportunity to, maybe, do certain things better where applicable.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Fedora going away too? Nope. - Fedora is cutting edge/desktop. - CentOS Stream is testing/RC area for RHEL patches. - RHEL is the stable server for enterprise. This is what I understood from a reply to another comment of me in a similar thread.

> - CentOS Stream is testing/RC area for RHEL patches. No more than 'current' rhel is testing for centos patches.

Quoting Matthew Miller from Fedora:

"Everything that goes into Stream is approved for a minor release in RHEL."

Source is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25360352

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#434
post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's supposed to be against the GPL, but no one is willing to chase it.

In what way is it "supposed to be against the GPL"?

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But.. why did they have to name it that?

Not sure if there are solid evidence established to prove this, but Cockroaches are believed to be capable of surviving large amount of radiations (like from nuclear bomb), hence they thought it would be apt for a geographically distributed DB. https://sciencenotes.org/can-cockroaches-survive-nuclear-bom...

I wonder if they brainstormed something like BunkerDB when deciding on a name with that in mind.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#436
post #417
post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. but unfortunately, not all 'corporate' software runs or finds all the libs on Debian based distros.. which sucks I know, because I too find this whole 'corporate blessed linux' thingy really unproductive. I work on servers used in VFX rendering pipelines and some software will simply refuse to properly run if I don't give it at least a CentOS. And if I do manage to get it running on Debian/Ubuntu, automatical…

Hello fellow VFX/Anim admin! And yeah, even though we have the platform agnostic VFX Reference Platform, pretty much everything in this industry revolves around RHEL/CentOS. Except SideFX, they are a golden exception, and explicitly support non-Red Hat family distributions.

For those not familiar with the visual effects platform:

https://vfxplatform.com/

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#437

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.

Sam and Max hit the code.

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#439

Does anyone know what exactly what were the legal/financial mechanics of RedHat 'absorbing' CentOS in the first place? Is "CentOS" a trademark? Is the CentOS logo trademarked? Who exactly owned the servers that CentOS was distributed from? Did CentOS have people on the payroll who took jobs at RedHat? (Did CentOS have a payroll in the first place?)

They bought the trademark. From https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/

> The CentOS Marks are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. (“Red Hat”).

Most servers that distribute current binary RPMs are mirrors operated by third parties. You can be reasonably certain that servers like www.centos.org, mirror.centos.org, vault.centos.org, or buildlogs.centos.org are paid for by Red Hat. Their IPs are mostly AWS.

https://www.redhat.com/ja/about/press-releases/red-hat-and-c...

Re: Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder

#440

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”.

Rocky is going to be tough to maintain. With CentOS being an internal part of Red Hat, it really helped for them being able to tap engineers for information about nasty CVEs getting fixed upsream in RHEL and numberous other headaches (build failures etc).
Post reply on HN