meanwhile Debian users are continuing on with their blissful utopian lives. stay away from rhel ecosystem for your mental health =)
Its not like that Debian is completely drama free. Ubuntu and Canonical happily provides that mess.
Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
51–60 of 104 posts
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#52Not 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.
Debian LTS only has 5 years of support, without guarantees, on a volunteer basis.
RHEL has 10 years of support, with the option of 13 years.
I like debian, but sometimes you have to have long term support. And I fully understand why you wouldn't support 13 year old software without getting paid for it.
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#53meanwhile Debian users are continuing on with their blissful utopian lives. stay away from rhel ecosystem for your mental health =)
Its not like that Debian is completely drama free. Ubuntu and Canonical happily provides that mess.
Ubuntu and Canonical are downstream. So yes, Debian is more or less drama free.
I run Debian on all my servers and, knock on wood, I have not had an issue in over 15 years of usage. It quite literally is the most rock solid and trouble-free OS I have ever used.
I have a ton of experience with Ubuntu, too, but these days there is no compelling reason to use their stuff. The contrary actually - considering all the telemetry, motd integrations, etc and don't forget snap.
Debian 12 is a really outstanding release.
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's the idea, but Red Hat is making that ever more difficult. And I can understand why. Why would you build your world on such shifting sands, when all those forks could pitch in on Debian long term support instead?
Or just shell out for RHEL?
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Debian LTS only has 5 years of support, without guarantees, on a volunteer basis. RHEL has 10 years of support, with the option of 13 years. I like debian, but sometimes you have to have long term support. And I fully understand why you wouldn't support 13 year old software without getting paid for it.
> Debian LTS only has 5 years of support, without guarantees, on a volunteer basis.
Seems like there's plenty of volunteering in the CentOS fork community. Why not put that wood behind Debian LTS arrow? Seems like a much better idea than continue trying to build on an unreliable partner like Red Hat.
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I havent been following the saga, just learned about it last week. Was Red Hat losing money? Or they wanted more money?
IBM sees economic utility as just making money. They don't see the utility of name branding and ease of transition. For example, I was using CentOS for prototype development. No way would I be able to get RHEL for this. CentOS allowed for not having to hassle with development license management with RHEL. Meaning more time spent on trying to get something work vs handling business to business logistics. This way, if…
> I was using CentOS for prototype development. No way would I be able to get RHEL for this.
Why doesn't the free RHEL developer subscription work for this use case? (Honestly curious, as I use it for similar prototype development and want to make sure I'm not missing something).
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#57Earlier 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?
> Do you have any other references on this?
Not a reference per-se, but an interesting post on the Nirokey blog "NextBox: Why we Decided for and Against Ubuntu Core"
[1]https://www.nitrokey.com/news/2021/nextbox-why-we-decided-an...
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Ah, I hadn't thought of that angle. IBM has become the CA Technologies (formerly Computer Associates International) or MicroFocus of the 21st century.
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Debian LTS only has 5 years of support, without guarantees, on a volunteer basis. RHEL has 10 years of support, with the option of 13 years. I like debian, but sometimes you have to have long term support. And I fully understand why you wouldn't support 13 year old software without getting paid for it.
> Debian LTS only has 5 years of support, without guarantees, on a volunteer basis. Seems like there's plenty of volunteering in the CentOS fork community. Why not put that wood behind Debian LTS arrow? Seems like a much better idea than continue trying to build on an unreliable partner like Red Hat.
But the work is mostly to repackage RHEL patches. To support Debian LTS for longer you have to do all the backports which is obviously much more work.
Re: Rocky Linux shares how they may continue to obtain the RHEL source code
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Debian LTS only has 5 years of support, without guarantees, on a volunteer basis. RHEL has 10 years of support, with the option of 13 years. I like debian, but sometimes you have to have long term support. And I fully understand why you wouldn't support 13 year old software without getting paid for it.
Seems like a great time for Debian to step up, and offer 'sponsored' 10 year LTS support for their releases..