4 ms·

Why Rocky? Why trust the guy that sold to RHEL once already? Why not Alma that has a stated commitment to never sell to a private corporation? Alma also has a s

Why Rocky? Why trust the guy that sold to RHEL once already? Why not Alma that has a stated commitment to never sell to a private corporation? Alma also has a stated turn around time for security patches of 2-3 business days, something I have not seen from Rocky. If we decide we can’t afford 100% RHEL licensing, Alma was my choice, but I see so many choosing Rocky, and I’m genuinely curious why people are doing that.

ensignavenger 4y ago
Either appear to be acceptable choices. Looking at their respective websites, they both make similiar commitments to remaining independent. From what I found, the Rocky website actually makes the commitment in stronger terms than the Alma website.
iamwpj 4y ago
He sold to RHEL and then RHEL sold to IBM and then CentOS was changed. I don't think selling to RHEL is the condemning move here.
- dralley 4y ago
  The change had nothing to do with IBM. I know people view this with skepticism, but it's true. The primary purpose of CentOS Stream is this: to allow a real community to be built around CentOS, where partners and users can contribute. With CentOS if you encountered a bug your only option was to file it against RHEL (not CentOS), wait for someone at Red Hat to get to it, then wait for RHEL to pick it up and release it. You would be very lucky for that whole process to complete within 6 months and if you're not a customer you probably won't be able to test a hotfix on your own systems. Whereas with Stream: partners and downstream developers can file issues directly against Stream, and then contribute fixes directly to Stream, where they get QA'd in public and are added directly to the future release of RHEL. So Oracle Linux, Rocky, Alma and anyone else can actually participate in the process and contribute back instead of having to just take whatever RH throws over the wall. However, the messaging and timelines around all of this were handled... not well, and some of the acrimony around that is reasonable even if the changes make sense.
  - sliken 4y ago
    Wasn't that the purpose of Fedora? An up to date distro where new technologies can tested, community and partner feedback, etc. In any case, I get the justification for CentOS stream, but changing CentOS 8's EoL from 2029, to Jan 1st 2020 ... after it shipped is definitely a good way to alienate your customers and community.
    - dralley 4y ago
      Fedora is where new major versions of RHEL (think 7, 8, 9) come from. Within a major version of RHEL, there was no public upstream under the previous model, and now that public upstream is CentOS Stream. Fedora moves fast enough that by the time a RHEL release comes out, Fedora has moved far enough to not be very relevant as an upstream.
      - rbanffy 4y ago
        With the exception of Rawhide, Fedora also has major versions. It looks like people think CentOS Stream is Rawhide or Debian Sid, which it is not.
        j33zusjuice 4y ago
        People think it’s even remotely close to Fedora because it was initially communicated as an upstream, rolling distro (which Fedora isn’t, anyway, so …), and they never read any of the press or forum posts after day one. Even if Stream had versions, it’s still only tracking about a minor release ahead of RHEL. If you trusted RHEL’s QE process before, there’s little reason to stop trusting it. I really don’t think much has changed in terms of usage outside of some infrequently used software, but you have to account for that when managing them on a RHEL system, too, so I still don’t really understand the problem.
        rbanffy 4y ago
        Also, Red Hat is aware CentOS is their marketing tool. If you like CentOS a lot and need serious support, you hire Red Hat.
indigodaddy 4y ago
Another upside of Alma is it is backed by the CloudLinux guys who have been around for a long time with a solid reputation in the Linux/hosting industry—- and I believe you can also obtain a support package for a relative pittance (obviously it’s not RHELcorp-level support, but if you require/need support, it’s something at least). We have a couple thousand Alma 8 in production and it’s been smooth sailing.
infinet 4y ago
Same here. Probably Rocky spends too many resources in PR. Twitter, mattermost... Meanwhile, Alma just make new releases and patches, quietly.
- sliken 4y ago
  Rocky is more visible, I don't see that as a bad thing, not like it spends many resources. It also helps partners decide to support them, in particular Mellanox now Rocky-8.

ensignavenger 4y ago

Either appear to be acceptable choices. Looking at their respective websites, they both make similiar commitments to remaining independent. From what I found, the Rocky website actually makes the commitment in stronger terms than the Alma website.

iamwpj 4y ago

He sold to RHEL and then RHEL sold to IBM and then CentOS was changed. I don't think selling to RHEL is the condemning move here.

dralley 4y ago
The change had nothing to do with IBM. I know people view this with skepticism, but it's true. The primary purpose of CentOS Stream is this: to allow a real community to be built around CentOS, where partners and users can contribute. With CentOS if you encountered a bug your only option was to file it against RHEL (not CentOS), wait for someone at Red Hat to get to it, then wait for RHEL to pick it up and release it. You would be very lucky for that whole process to complete within 6 months and if you're not a customer you probably won't be able to test a hotfix on your own systems. Whereas with Stream: partners and downstream developers can file issues directly against Stream, and then contribute fixes directly to Stream, where they get QA'd in public and are added directly to the future release of RHEL. So Oracle Linux, Rocky, Alma and anyone else can actually participate in the process and contribute back instead of having to just take whatever RH throws over the wall. However, the messaging and timelines around all of this were handled... not well, and some of the acrimony around that is reasonable even if the changes make sense.
- sliken 4y ago
  Wasn't that the purpose of Fedora? An up to date distro where new technologies can tested, community and partner feedback, etc. In any case, I get the justification for CentOS stream, but changing CentOS 8's EoL from 2029, to Jan 1st 2020 ... after it shipped is definitely a good way to alienate your customers and community.
  - dralley 4y ago
    Fedora is where new major versions of RHEL (think 7, 8, 9) come from. Within a major version of RHEL, there was no public upstream under the previous model, and now that public upstream is CentOS Stream. Fedora moves fast enough that by the time a RHEL release comes out, Fedora has moved far enough to not be very relevant as an upstream.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      With the exception of Rawhide, Fedora also has major versions. It looks like people think CentOS Stream is Rawhide or Debian Sid, which it is not.
      - j33zusjuice 4y ago
        People think it’s even remotely close to Fedora because it was initially communicated as an upstream, rolling distro (which Fedora isn’t, anyway, so …), and they never read any of the press or forum posts after day one. Even if Stream had versions, it’s still only tracking about a minor release ahead of RHEL. If you trusted RHEL’s QE process before, there’s little reason to stop trusting it. I really don’t think much has changed in terms of usage outside of some infrequently used software, but you have to account for that when managing them on a RHEL system, too, so I still don’t really understand the problem.
        rbanffy 4y ago
        Also, Red Hat is aware CentOS is their marketing tool. If you like CentOS a lot and need serious support, you hire Red Hat.

indigodaddy 4y ago

Another upside of Alma is it is backed by the CloudLinux guys who have been around for a long time with a solid reputation in the Linux/hosting industry—- and I believe you can also obtain a support package for a relative pittance (obviously it’s not RHELcorp-level support, but if you require/need support, it’s something at least). We have a couple thousand Alma 8 in production and it’s been smooth sailing.

infinet 4y ago

Same here. Probably Rocky spends too many resources in PR. Twitter, mattermost... Meanwhile, Alma just make new releases and patches, quietly.

sliken 4y ago
Rocky is more visible, I don't see that as a bad thing, not like it spends many resources. It also helps partners decide to support them, in particular Mellanox now Rocky-8.