5 ms·

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

by kondbg 6y ago

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, etc.) between CentOS 8.3 (https://vault.centos.org/8.3.2011/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/ https://vault.centos.org/8.3.2011/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/) Oracle Linux 8.3 (https://yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL8/baseos/latest/x86_64/index_src.html https://yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL8/baseos/latest/x8...) shows that they are indeed byte identical (with the exception of certain spec files including debranding patches). What is the value of having a separate RHEL derivative? It isn't as if the "community" can propose/submit any changes, since any changes will cease to make the downstream distribution a "bug for bug" compatible RHEL derivative. If I actually wanted to participate in the larger RHEL-derivative community, I would need to actually submit my changes to the CentOS stream project.

haolez 6y ago
Oracle Linux might change the rules in the future. It kind of just happened with CentOS :)
- ajsfoux234 6y ago
  Well, the same thing might happen with Rocky Linux as well :)
  - hnarn 6y ago
    “Anything can happen” is not an argument. It’s about quantified risk.
    - emayljames 6y ago
      Yes, and the 2 parties have very different motivates.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    It's unlikely they would sabotage their only competitive advantage though, whereas Oracle has lots of reasons to maintain an enterprise linux distribution besides just succeeding CentOS.
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    Yes but then somebody would make Rocky-2
em500 6y ago
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 of new questions about Oracle Linux 8 given the recent CentOS 8 announcement.
- teknopaul 6y ago
  RHEL is open source and always will be.
- mroche 6y ago
  RHEL sources can be retrieved in four ways: 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 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.
bayindirh 6y ago
> Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist distribution over something already existing, such as Oracle Linux? Because there's a whole ecosystem (HPC and Scientific computing to be exact) which depends on CentOS (not RHEL, not Oracle, not Ubuntu, not Debian) primarily. A CentOS compatible distribution is not some FOSS pride thing. IBM and RH really blew a sucker punch in this regard.
- niea_11 6y ago
  When you say that they depend on CentOS, are they using something CentOS-specific. Centos is supposed to be compatible with RHEL (minus the logos/trademarks) and shouldn't have additional fixes or features. ("bug for bug, feature for feature" <= centos wording :)). No?
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    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. CentOS carries a legacy from Scientific Linux (which was RH compatible too) and has a lot of software packages developed for/on it. It might be a regular .tar.gz or RPM distribution but, they're validated and certified on CentOS. This is enough. Some middlewares used in collaborative projects (intentionally or unintentionally) search for CentOS signature. Otherwise installations fail spectacularly (or annoyingly, it depends). I have to run my own application on every platform with a relatively simple test suite which checks results with 32 significant digit ground truth values. If these tests fail for a reason, then I can't trust my application's results for a particular problem. My code runs fast and it's relatively simple (since it's young). Some software packages' tests can run for days. It's not feasible to re-validate a software every time after compilation on a different set of libraries, etc. CentOS provides this foundation for free.
    - niea_11 6y ago
that_guy_iain 6y ago
> Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist distribution over something already existing, such as Oracle Linux? Because you want what CentOS was and this is basically going to be what CentOS was. Different name, different people, but same prinicple.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  Theoretically Oracle Linux and CentOS are identical except the branding, except CentOS has been abandoned and Oracle is just getting started with OL.
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    But Oracle Linux has a different principle really, no? I never think of Oracle and think "Making the paid software free".
  - antihero 6y ago
    But Oracle are the company we probably trust the least with matters like this.
_jal 6y ago
> Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist Devil's response: nobody cares if you do. A lot of people know why they want it; the answer will in many cases be that it will fill the same niche and not be controlled by a shitty company. (If you think calling Oracle shitty is FUD, unprofessional or similar, that's fine: see 'Devil's response', above.) It will stand or fall on its own, as a result of many different peoples' choices. For now, it is enough that something is growing in the niche from which Centos was uprooted.
freiheit 6y ago
I haven't seen "using Oracle Linux will result in me being sued". What I've seen is "Oracle is evil", "don't trust Oracle", and something like "my prior history around Oracle has left such a lasting bad taste that I throw up a little in my mouth every time I touch something with Oracle in it, so I'd rather do almost anything but use something from Oracle, since using it on the daily would inevitably lead to permanent esophagus damage." I mean... Oracle buying up MySQL was enough for MariaDB to be created and move to being the default. (well, and some of what Oracle did right afterwards).
undecisive 6y ago
I find it interesting that the argument that "X is FUD" is supposed to carry weight. It's a bit like if I'm in a party, and I briskly walk up to five people and each time I hit them in the face, and then it's your turn and you move away, and I say "what? the idea that I would hit you is FUD". It's not FUD. It's a pattern of behaviour. Avoiding overly litigious companies - where other as-good or better choices exist - is not overly cautious, it's just good sense. Where other as-good choices do not exist, it seems perfectly reasonable (depending on your risk profile) to work with others to create the better choice. Of course, I say all this as someone who has worked in massive multinational corporations and now work in small startups. I'm now likely never going to use Rocky Linux for exactly the reason you've hinted to - in effect, it is not a usecase either of us care about. But for those people who do need this, I'm very happy that someone has championed the cause.
curt15 6y ago
It just seems weird to willingly associate with a company that is trying to outlaw the very practice that gave birth to GNU/Linux in the first place.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Why not use SUSE then? Oracle is the last option that I would ever trust. They always have something up their sleeve

by kondbg 6y ago

haolez 6y ago

Oracle Linux might change the rules in the future. It kind of just happened with CentOS :)

ajsfoux234 6y ago
Well, the same thing might happen with Rocky Linux as well :)
- hnarn 6y ago
  “Anything can happen” is not an argument. It’s about quantified risk.
  - emayljames 6y ago
    Yes, and the 2 parties have very different motivates.
- shawnz 6y ago
  It's unlikely they would sabotage their only competitive advantage though, whereas Oracle has lots of reasons to maintain an enterprise linux distribution besides just succeeding CentOS.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  Yes but then somebody would make Rocky-2

em500 6y ago

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 of new questions about Oracle Linux 8 given the recent CentOS 8 announcement.

teknopaul 6y ago
RHEL is open source and always will be.
mroche 6y ago
RHEL sources can be retrieved in four ways: 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 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.

bayindirh 6y ago

> Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist distribution over something already existing, such as Oracle Linux? Because there's a whole ecosystem (HPC and Scientific computing to be exact) which depends on CentOS (not RHEL, not Oracle, not Ubuntu, not Debian) primarily. A CentOS compatible distribution is not some FOSS pride thing. IBM and RH really blew a sucker punch in this regard.

niea_11 6y ago
When you say that they depend on CentOS, are they using something CentOS-specific. Centos is supposed to be compatible with RHEL (minus the logos/trademarks) and shouldn't have additional fixes or features. ("bug for bug, feature for feature" <= centos wording :)). No?
- bayindirh 6y ago
  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. CentOS carries a legacy from Scientific Linux (which was RH compatible too) and has a lot of software packages developed for/on it. It might be a regular .tar.gz or RPM distribution but, they're validated and certified on CentOS. This is enough. Some middlewares used in collaborative projects (intentionally or unintentionally) search for CentOS signature. Otherwise installations fail spectacularly (or annoyingly, it depends). I have to run my own application on every platform with a relatively simple test suite which checks results with 32 significant digit ground truth values. If these tests fail for a reason, then I can't trust my application's results for a particular problem. My code runs fast and it's relatively simple (since it's young). Some software packages' tests can run for days. It's not feasible to re-validate a software every time after compilation on a different set of libraries, etc. CentOS provides this foundation for free.
  - niea_11 6y ago

that_guy_iain 6y ago

> Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist distribution over something already existing, such as Oracle Linux? Because you want what CentOS was and this is basically going to be what CentOS was. Different name, different people, but same prinicple.

DarkmSparks 6y ago
Theoretically Oracle Linux and CentOS are identical except the branding, except CentOS has been abandoned and Oracle is just getting started with OL.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  But Oracle Linux has a different principle really, no? I never think of Oracle and think "Making the paid software free".
- antihero 6y ago
  But Oracle are the company we probably trust the least with matters like this.

_jal 6y ago

> Devil's advocate: why should I choose this yet-to-exist Devil's response: nobody cares if you do. A lot of people know why they want it; the answer will in many cases be that it will fill the same niche and not be controlled by a shitty company. (If you think calling Oracle shitty is FUD, unprofessional or similar, that's fine: see 'Devil's response', above.) It will stand or fall on its own, as a result of many different peoples' choices. For now, it is enough that something is growing in the niche from which Centos was uprooted.

freiheit 6y ago

I haven't seen "using Oracle Linux will result in me being sued". What I've seen is "Oracle is evil", "don't trust Oracle", and something like "my prior history around Oracle has left such a lasting bad taste that I throw up a little in my mouth every time I touch something with Oracle in it, so I'd rather do almost anything but use something from Oracle, since using it on the daily would inevitably lead to permanent esophagus damage." I mean... Oracle buying up MySQL was enough for MariaDB to be created and move to being the default. (well, and some of what Oracle did right afterwards).

undecisive 6y ago

I find it interesting that the argument that "X is FUD" is supposed to carry weight. It's a bit like if I'm in a party, and I briskly walk up to five people and each time I hit them in the face, and then it's your turn and you move away, and I say "what? the idea that I would hit you is FUD". It's not FUD. It's a pattern of behaviour. Avoiding overly litigious companies - where other as-good or better choices exist - is not overly cautious, it's just good sense. Where other as-good choices do not exist, it seems perfectly reasonable (depending on your risk profile) to work with others to create the better choice. Of course, I say all this as someone who has worked in massive multinational corporations and now work in small startups. I'm now likely never going to use Rocky Linux for exactly the reason you've hinted to - in effect, it is not a usecase either of us care about. But for those people who do need this, I'm very happy that someone has championed the cause.

curt15 6y ago

It just seems weird to willingly associate with a company that is trying to outlaw the very practice that gave birth to GNU/Linux in the first place.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Why not use SUSE then? Oracle is the last option that I would ever trust. They always have something up their sleeve