Can you share the top contenders for replacements?
debian most likely, still have to do a proper evaluation, it's a big lift to go from yum to apt though...
Not really because people who are using RHEL in the first place are $BigCorp which run enterprise software (for example Oracle) for which you can only get support if you run on a supported enterprise OS.
So we'd just run RHEL for the clients who needed these support contracts and used CentOS for everyone else to still have a homogeneous environment.
With Debian I can't get this kind of support. So the options are reduced to Oracle Linux and SLES/openSUSE.
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 tele…
I wouldn't diss the use Debian. I use it always if the software package provides it. Debian does tend to keep to its principles.
As I'm not wanting to dogfight the drama, I feel that Canonical, and with documented "heated" discussion on the mail list has, to me tainted the same waterhole that Debian uses.
It has done well to snuff the same flames that flare with RedHat.
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.
The idea was that Red Hat was doing things right, no need to punish them. But if they became a problem, there were other ecosystems.
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).
If you spin up a bunch of cattle, your automation and testing is going to want to be for your specific use case to get the meat from them - the moment you need to waste even 10 minutes dealing with (even uncertainties around) subscription management to name and enumerate each of your "pets", then you know the vendor doesn't care about your real-life problems and will persist in generating roadblocks to fulfill their business requirements while ignoring yours.
Where an option exists to do the CI/CD/testing/prototyping with an airgap or where no communication with the mothership is required, and no requests for licenses/subscriptions are needed for you to do your job, that option begins to look very appealing.
Sure, you may get a bunch of free dev licenses - but I believe the integration cost of using them costs more engineering effort than option #2: not bothering with any engineering integration effort to fulfil another business's requirements while you should instead be working on your own.
I dislike this move from Red Hat, but I think that bug-for-bug compatibility is overvalued. Everyone who either likes the general RH ecosystem or has to support RH customers could probably continue working on CentOS.
People could also just fork and long-term-support CentOS to provide a more stable platform.
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 read messages like this and it always seems like folk think Red Hat are missing out because people aren't using a free competitor.
What I think this change will make happen, 80-95% of the companies using CentOS or Rocky stop using RHEL based linux distros. But the rest start paying Red Hat. Those who moved away were never going to buy anyways so why should Red Hat care if they don't use a free competitor that used their work?
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
Can you share the top contenders for replacements?
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 tele…
The snaps thingie can probably make me replace Ubuntu with Debian in some future date.
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).
Time is an economic utility. Managing developer account(s) and licensing is a time sink to bad utility. Also dealing with the B2B sales department is also within that time sink. More friction to use a product for a prototype is also a bad utility.
Just look at the developer Subscription FAQ and there are a bunch of possible issues that one must spend time to work around. Loading CentOS is near frictionless.