8 ms·

Seems to only relate to RHEL 6, or derivatives of, such as CentOS 6. Yes: 6. Which is as EOL as enterprise software gets: https://access.redhat.com/support/poli

Seems to only relate to RHEL 6, or derivatives of, such as CentOS 6. Yes: 6. Which is as EOL as enterprise software gets: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Life_Cycle_Dates https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Life...

Xylakant 4y ago
RHEL 6 is in Extended Lifecycle Support until June 2024 (that is: customers with suitable subscriptions still get critical patches). It’s a zombie, but it’s not quite dead yet. I’d bet that there are still enough (+) people out there running it. (+) or rather too many.
- scns 4y ago
  There are paying customers. It might not be shiny/fun, but there is a reason Red Hat became the first one-billion dollar open-source company in 2012.
  - Jedd 4y ago
    Wouldn't IBM be the title holders there?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - capableweb 4y ago
      "open-source company" is kind of an subjective term at this point I guess, so hard to say. But what can be said, is that even though IBM contributes a lot to open source, not many would claim IBM is a "open-source company" I think, at least when compared to Red Hat.
      - Jedd 4y ago
        Yeah, I get that distinction, and the vagueness of the phrase 'open source' doesn't help with this kind of definition. If IBM put US$1B into 'Linux' 22 years ago - but this was a small part of their operating budget at the time - do we look at absolute or comparative value? If IBM buys, three years ago, RedHat for US$34B, does that mean IBM is now the biggest 'open source' company? (If so, the next question is obvious.)
- quags 4y ago
  For centos6 there is cloudlinux also providing extended release support (paid) for those who don't have a RHEL subscription until 2024.
sheepdestroyer 4y ago
Comparatively, RHEL 6 is still kind of fine, at least it is still officially supported as virtualized OS in oVirt... We run a lot of CentOS 5 virtual machines (and some physical ones! ; and some RHEL4! , and a few Fedora core 8 and 4 !!!), with no end in sight... :( It is a huge concern for the Infra team, a source of many headaches, and we need to go through oops to keep them running, but: - Clients don't want to move from OLDPRODUCT that requires extremely old php. - Dev team is not interested in migrating OLDPRODUCT to a modern platform, or even try to put it in a container. Their eyes are turned to the shiny NEWPRODUCT that is seemingly never fully coming to production (only one client has signed for it). - New clients are still regularly signed on OLDPRODUCT. - No one in the org wants to pay for for a migration anyway. - Since some clients have complained about poor apparent security, what was visible was just hidden behind newer haproxy.
- semi-extrinsic 4y ago
  OT, but: why don't you just compile up an old php version from source on a new OS? It's a bit of a hassle the first time you do it, sure, but less than the hassle of running multiple legacy OS?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The legacy OS is even less hassle, because it never gets any updates and just sits there. If you compile old software on a new OS, every single update to that OS has a chance to blow up your compiled old version, so it takes more hand-holding. Can be worth it at times, but other times it's just easier to firewall and hope for the best.
- carlmr 4y ago
  >NEWPRODUCT that is seemingly never fully coming to production >- New clients are still regularly signed on OLDPRODUCT. I mean what's the WHY behind that? Why don't even new customers sign on to the new product? Why is the new product not in production? Is that the same reason?
  - bombcar 4y ago
kibwen 4y ago
Despite that, RHEL 6 appears to be entrenched. Rust has been proposing to update its baseline Linux and glibc versions to circa-2012 vintage, which would exclude RHEL 6, and has been receiving pushback from people whose customers still use RHEL 6.

Xylakant 4y ago

RHEL 6 is in Extended Lifecycle Support until June 2024 (that is: customers with suitable subscriptions still get critical patches). It’s a zombie, but it’s not quite dead yet. I’d bet that there are still enough (+) people out there running it. (+) or rather too many.

scns 4y ago
There are paying customers. It might not be shiny/fun, but there is a reason Red Hat became the first one-billion dollar open-source company in 2012.
- Jedd 4y ago
  Wouldn't IBM be the title holders there?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - capableweb 4y ago
    "open-source company" is kind of an subjective term at this point I guess, so hard to say. But what can be said, is that even though IBM contributes a lot to open source, not many would claim IBM is a "open-source company" I think, at least when compared to Red Hat.
    - Jedd 4y ago
      Yeah, I get that distinction, and the vagueness of the phrase 'open source' doesn't help with this kind of definition. If IBM put US$1B into 'Linux' 22 years ago - but this was a small part of their operating budget at the time - do we look at absolute or comparative value? If IBM buys, three years ago, RedHat for US$34B, does that mean IBM is now the biggest 'open source' company? (If so, the next question is obvious.)
quags 4y ago
For centos6 there is cloudlinux also providing extended release support (paid) for those who don't have a RHEL subscription until 2024.

sheepdestroyer 4y ago

Comparatively, RHEL 6 is still kind of fine, at least it is still officially supported as virtualized OS in oVirt... We run a lot of CentOS 5 virtual machines (and some physical ones! ; and some RHEL4! , and a few Fedora core 8 and 4 !!!), with no end in sight... :( It is a huge concern for the Infra team, a source of many headaches, and we need to go through oops to keep them running, but: - Clients don't want to move from OLDPRODUCT that requires extremely old php. - Dev team is not interested in migrating OLDPRODUCT to a modern platform, or even try to put it in a container. Their eyes are turned to the shiny NEWPRODUCT that is seemingly never fully coming to production (only one client has signed for it). - New clients are still regularly signed on OLDPRODUCT. - No one in the org wants to pay for for a migration anyway. - Since some clients have complained about poor apparent security, what was visible was just hidden behind newer haproxy.

semi-extrinsic 4y ago
OT, but: why don't you just compile up an old php version from source on a new OS? It's a bit of a hassle the first time you do it, sure, but less than the hassle of running multiple legacy OS?
- bombcar 4y ago
  The legacy OS is even less hassle, because it never gets any updates and just sits there. If you compile old software on a new OS, every single update to that OS has a chance to blow up your compiled old version, so it takes more hand-holding. Can be worth it at times, but other times it's just easier to firewall and hope for the best.
carlmr 4y ago
>NEWPRODUCT that is seemingly never fully coming to production >- New clients are still regularly signed on OLDPRODUCT. I mean what's the WHY behind that? Why don't even new customers sign on to the new product? Why is the new product not in production? Is that the same reason?
- bombcar 4y ago

kibwen 4y ago

Despite that, RHEL 6 appears to be entrenched. Rust has been proposing to update its baseline Linux and glibc versions to circa-2012 vintage, which would exclude RHEL 6, and has been receiving pushback from people whose customers still use RHEL 6.