6 ms·
It's compatible with cgroups v2 unlike the standard Docker. If you're using Fedora, you have to add a kernel parameter to Grub to use cgroups v1 instead. RedHa
by zelly 6y ago
It's compatible with cgroups v2 unlike the standard Docker. If you're using Fedora, you have to add a kernel parameter to Grub to use cgroups v1 instead.
RedHat seems to be pushing a standard ecosystem for Linux: systemd, Wayland, SELinux, GNOME, and now maybe podman. I've been on Linux for a while; it's a welcome change from all the fragmentation I'm used to. Whereas others try to work around the kernel and implement their own things in parallel (see: Canonical's AppArmor, LXC, OpenZFS), RedHat just goes with what Linux already has like SELinux/cgroups v2/btrfs, which I think is more likely to last and just feels better. If RedHat goes away, I'm fine since I'm ultimately only relying on Linux features. If Canonical goes away, then I'd have to switch to a different stack. That's probably why government, enterprises, Amazon, etc. still prefer RedHat.
- dahfizz 6y agoAnecdotally, I've worked with developers at Redhat and Canonical, and the Redhat developers had passion. They really believed in open source and the linux community. In comparison Canonical seemed like Just Another Software Company to me.
- zer0nka 6y agobtrfs is depreciated in redhat distribution
- weikju 6y ago*deprecated On the other hand isn’t btrfs becoming the default in Fedora 33, thus eventually making a comeback in RHEL?
- Iolaum 6y agoYes that may well happen. It's also noteworthy that the BTRFS change was driven by community members, mainly from Facebook.
- josephcsible 6y agoIf you want to use btrfs on RHEL8, you still can: go to https://elrepo.org/ https://elrepo.org/ and install elrepo-release, then install kernel-ml from their -kernel repo and btrfs-progs from their -testing repo.
- jlgaddis 6y ago... at which point you lose the support you're paying for from Red Hat, thus defeating the purpose of using RHEL in the first place. So if you want to use Btrfs, you might as well use it on something besides RHEL.
- freedomben 6y agoI have heard that they will still try to help you, they just won't guarantee it works on btrfs.
- josephcsible 6y agoRunning an unsupported kernel doesn't mean that support won't help you at all. It just means they won't help you with kernel-related issues. There's still a lot of value in support for the rest of the system.
- dariusj18 6y agoI think governments prefer redhat because they are consistent and they accept gobs of cash to promise security patches to software that are past their support window.
- waheoo 6y agoPretty much this, they know how the game is played and they play it.
- mseidl 6y agoWe have our LTSS -> Long term support at SUSE. Just in case you're a big government that wants to throw us lots of money.
- MrBuddyCasino 6y agoOff-topic, but what’s you experience working at Suse? I know a former employee, and what he told me sounded hellish.
- ahartmetz 6y agoI know two people who work or recently used to work at Suse and they liked it quite a bit.
- _whiteCaps_ 6y agoI'm an Ex-SUSE employee, and I quite enjoyed it - since I left a few years ago, I don't think there's been any turnover in my group since.
- mseidl 6y agoI love it. Not that it doesn't have it's issues. I've been here 10 years now though.
- aruggirello 6y agoI don't know about the gobbles of cash, but I'm pretty sure Canonical supports Ubuntu releases way past EOL for paying customers - they call it the ESM (Extended Security Maintenance), which 'provides important security fixes for the kernel and the most essential user space packages in Ubuntu'.
- tannhaeuser 6y ago> RedHat just goes with what Linux already has More like, Redhat/IBM defines what Linux has simply by paying most Linux devs, and of course they take advantage of it in userspace and sys management. cgroups/namespaces, systemd, gnome (and it's integration with systemd) plus others are two-sided swords: one one hand they create new functionality, but on the other hand the price to pay is concentrating Linux know-how in one place, and greatly diminishing portability of Linux apps vs other Unix O/Ses and even other Linuxes that don't want to go with the program of absorbing ever more functionality into kernels and system frameworks for no real reason other than monopolization. Unix was designed as a simple portable operating system in very short time. With 30 years of development, the situation today could also be interpreted in such a way that Linux devs just can't stop to add code. Time will tell if Linux can be maintained if the original generation of devs step down. I'd feel more comfortable if we've let kernels stay minimal rather than becoming kitchen sinks. Apart from better portability, this would've also enabled younger devs to start from scratch rather than having to maintain daddy-o's monstrosity.
- spijdar 6y agoAs a 23 y/old younger (well, young-ish) dev, it strikes me that this isn't anything new. Old commercial solutions since nearly the beginning have been predicated on proprietary solutions specific to some vendor's UNIX based OS. HP-UX, AIX, even back to the really early commercial releases of v7 all seem to have a common theme of having that unix core but with a lot of nice features added on, typically with pretty insane and convoluted frameworks. Tru64's clustering, AIX's management interface, all the competing UIs and management interfaces. All nice features deeply integrated into a proprietary solution as a form of vendor lock-in. To your point, it seems like eventually this ends poorly for the incumbents, when they become too bloated and too difficult to extend or modify, since you have to work around some over-engineered high-availability process clustering to touch anything. In Linux's case, I think the kernel itself is actually fine, but the user land is increasingly tightly glued to an increasingly convoluted set of RedHat stacks. I mean, it always has -- RedHat made the modern posix threads library, Linux's PAM, and several other core parts, but at least those were pretty modular and "unixy", by comparison to the monolith being developed now.
- 6y ago
- Shakahs 6y agoWhat you are noticing is the RedHat “upstream first” policy, and it’s very practical. They try to minimize RedHat specific modifications and instead contribute improvements directly to the original projects. This reduces the amount of code they are responsible for maintaining, and everyone involved gets the benefit of open source collaboration. They have a blog post about it here: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/what-open-source-upstream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/what-open-source-upstream
- raesene9 6y agoFWIW, Docker support for cgroups v2 is coming in 20.10 AFAIK
- vermaden 6y agoRed Hat deprecated BTRFS in its products (and does not have anything like ZFS). Its focuses on XFS from 1993. Its Stratis idea is just a joke comparing to what ZFS is. They should finally admin (like Canonical) that OpenZFS is the way of future filesystem for now. Linux world should put their religion (GPL) aside here. Besides above filesystem 'issue' the PulseAudio, systemd and SELinux are not hated without reason ... many people just 'love' what Lenny has to offer.