4 ms·

It was announced a while back and there is an easy migration procedure to Centos Stream 8. The argument made is that, overall, there should be less bugs in Cent

It was announced a while back and there is an easy migration procedure to Centos Stream 8. The argument made is that, overall, there should be less bugs in Centos Stream than in Centos of old because bug fixes are there first now and coming faster than ever was possible.

throw0101a 5y ago
> The argument made is that, overall, there should be less bug in Centos Stream than in Centos of old […] The bug level or not of CentOS was not its selling point, but compatibility: > Rocky Linux is an open-source enterprise operating system designed to be 100% bug-for-bug compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux®. * https://rockylinux.org https://rockylinux.org * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_compatibility If I want a better balance between stability and longevity I run Ubuntu/Debian, which have LTS releases every two years: code that isn't too old, nor 'too new'.
- sheepdestroyer 5y ago
  Can you explain in what case being exactly bug for bug compatible with a given set of RedHat rpms (which are also in flux all the time with regular updates) is actually more important to you than having less bugs in total? I understand that if your goal was to use CentOS to validate a specific and highly critical workload for eventually running in production on Redhat systems (taking into account the version lock dance to make sure that you indeed have the exact same package versions on both environments, meaning a lot more hassle and delays in bug fixes and security updates that simply following the regulars updates), then Rocky/Alma/AnyRebuild will be better for you. If your goal was already to run production on CentOS, with frequent updates for security, the theory would be that you will be even better served by CentOS Stream. My take is that it is the most popular case. What am I missing?
  - someperson 5y ago
    CentOS Stream is a "rolling release" that's serves a specific purpose of being bleeding-edge test environment to test new changes for future integration into RedHat's stable releases. Many high-availability workloads require a fixed operating-system baseline, where the only changes are security updates and high-priority bug fixes. And even these changes may need to be triaged to determine if the updates are even worth risking uptime. One example would be a hospital network with medical equipment workstations and backend servers. You don't want your ultrasound or key-hole surgery not working because a CentOS Stream update bug. Fixed operating baselines are important for many users.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
      Don't those installations tend to use a commercially supported distribution (RHEL in this particular case)? I've never worked on anything similar but find it really hard to believe you'd go around installing a "community enterprise" distribution on critical infrastructure.
    - sheepdestroyer 5y ago
      But this is not the case as I understand it. From RedHat's announcement blog and Centos website: CentOS Stream "a continuously delivered distribution that tracks just ahead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux". And indeed, I have read that all packages currently going into Stream 8 follow exactly the same testing and validation procedures than for entering Redhat Proper. But of course, this holds true only for released RedHat versions. Meaning that Stream 8, is currently just ahead of RedHat 8.5 and will soon start to incorporate changes planned for 8.6 (so nothing like a "bleeding-edge test environment to test new changes" as you put it). As for Stream 9 which was release recently, it is indeed the stabilisation socle based on fedora 34 that will eventually become RedHat 9. Once RedHat 9 released, Stream 9 branch will be stabilized and once again be "just ahead" of the impending RedHat 9 rpms. In any case, I am not sure that hospitals should be running/updating self supported OS on surgical equipments without proper testing anyway.
      - someperson 5y ago
        It would be the medical equipment manufacturer who would choose CentOS. And I'd argue CentOS was a fine choice given its track record and RedHat sponsorship.
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
  Please reconsider recommending Rocky. If you dive in a bit you'd probably find their attitude towards the community and community participation really weird. They seem to have pushed most of their resources towards better marketing instead of making a better distribution. Here's an example: about a half year ago the host of linuxunplugged.com (a pretty popular podcast IMO) invited representatives both from Alma Linux and from Rocky Linux. The Alma guy was happy to be on the show and showed up a few hours before it started to chat with community members. The Rocky guy asked if any other distributions will be there, and then sent a passive-aggressive email where he declined to participate because "we're not interested in being compared against other distributions", or something to that extent. This small example pretty much sums up their entire attitude. FWIW, I've been using https://almalinux.org https://almalinux.org for the past few months on a couple of dozen servers and it's been smooth sailing. (I've also been using Oracle Linux and it too worked fine. If only it were not Oracle…)
sh4un 5y ago
Sounds like a great plan for home servers.

throw0101a 5y ago

> The argument made is that, overall, there should be less bug in Centos Stream than in Centos of old […] The bug level or not of CentOS was not its selling point, but compatibility: > Rocky Linux is an open-source enterprise operating system designed to be 100% bug-for-bug compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux®. * https://rockylinux.org https://rockylinux.org * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_compatibility If I want a better balance between stability and longevity I run Ubuntu/Debian, which have LTS releases every two years: code that isn't too old, nor 'too new'.

sheepdestroyer 5y ago
Can you explain in what case being exactly bug for bug compatible with a given set of RedHat rpms (which are also in flux all the time with regular updates) is actually more important to you than having less bugs in total? I understand that if your goal was to use CentOS to validate a specific and highly critical workload for eventually running in production on Redhat systems (taking into account the version lock dance to make sure that you indeed have the exact same package versions on both environments, meaning a lot more hassle and delays in bug fixes and security updates that simply following the regulars updates), then Rocky/Alma/AnyRebuild will be better for you. If your goal was already to run production on CentOS, with frequent updates for security, the theory would be that you will be even better served by CentOS Stream. My take is that it is the most popular case. What am I missing?
- someperson 5y ago
  CentOS Stream is a "rolling release" that's serves a specific purpose of being bleeding-edge test environment to test new changes for future integration into RedHat's stable releases. Many high-availability workloads require a fixed operating-system baseline, where the only changes are security updates and high-priority bug fixes. And even these changes may need to be triaged to determine if the updates are even worth risking uptime. One example would be a hospital network with medical equipment workstations and backend servers. You don't want your ultrasound or key-hole surgery not working because a CentOS Stream update bug. Fixed operating baselines are important for many users.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    Don't those installations tend to use a commercially supported distribution (RHEL in this particular case)? I've never worked on anything similar but find it really hard to believe you'd go around installing a "community enterprise" distribution on critical infrastructure.
  - sheepdestroyer 5y ago
    But this is not the case as I understand it. From RedHat's announcement blog and Centos website: CentOS Stream "a continuously delivered distribution that tracks just ahead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux". And indeed, I have read that all packages currently going into Stream 8 follow exactly the same testing and validation procedures than for entering Redhat Proper. But of course, this holds true only for released RedHat versions. Meaning that Stream 8, is currently just ahead of RedHat 8.5 and will soon start to incorporate changes planned for 8.6 (so nothing like a "bleeding-edge test environment to test new changes" as you put it). As for Stream 9 which was release recently, it is indeed the stabilisation socle based on fedora 34 that will eventually become RedHat 9. Once RedHat 9 released, Stream 9 branch will be stabilized and once again be "just ahead" of the impending RedHat 9 rpms. In any case, I am not sure that hospitals should be running/updating self supported OS on surgical equipments without proper testing anyway.
    - someperson 5y ago
      It would be the medical equipment manufacturer who would choose CentOS. And I'd argue CentOS was a fine choice given its track record and RedHat sponsorship.
5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
Please reconsider recommending Rocky. If you dive in a bit you'd probably find their attitude towards the community and community participation really weird. They seem to have pushed most of their resources towards better marketing instead of making a better distribution. Here's an example: about a half year ago the host of linuxunplugged.com (a pretty popular podcast IMO) invited representatives both from Alma Linux and from Rocky Linux. The Alma guy was happy to be on the show and showed up a few hours before it started to chat with community members. The Rocky guy asked if any other distributions will be there, and then sent a passive-aggressive email where he declined to participate because "we're not interested in being compared against other distributions", or something to that extent. This small example pretty much sums up their entire attitude. FWIW, I've been using https://almalinux.org https://almalinux.org for the past few months on a couple of dozen servers and it's been smooth sailing. (I've also been using Oracle Linux and it too worked fine. If only it were not Oracle…)

sh4un 5y ago

Sounds like a great plan for home servers.