3 ms·

modern redhat --and this cannot be stressed enough-- is nothing like old redhat despite IBM's fervent insistance after the acquisition they would remain hands o

modern redhat --and this cannot be stressed enough-- is nothing like old redhat despite IBM's fervent insistance after the acquisition they would remain hands off. The hat killed Centos because some IBM midlevel manager needed to make quota for a bonus, and they didnt stop to realize just how unsuccessful this tactic was for Oracle/MySQL. moderen redhat is carved into about 40 seperate repositories and channels for packages designed to fleece you right down to the last RPM. need Ansible? sure it comes with redhat 9. need posix acl support from galaxy? that's another repo you didnt pay for. same goes for about a hundred other packages. redhat might have had great tech support in the past, but put a ticket in now and you're in IBM levels of "prove it" hell with SOSReport zips and zoom screenshares until your entry level support guy gives up the ghost and calls a developer, who tells you the bug cant/wont be fixed because libraries are hard or a rebase is impossible or any other number of boilerplate excuses why this ancient 4.x kernel based distro cant just source its solutions from fedora like they said they do and the flagships? forget it. Yeah Quay exists but try to implement it and youll find cool stuff like an administrator account defined in configuration but not created. once created in the admin panel youll have to go back and disable new user creation so you can control user creation at all, and the whole thing just feels rickety and poorly designed from the get-go. none of this is mentioned in the docs overtly, but is buried in Redhats bloated docs pages. just buy a quay hosted whatever from the hat instead. Openshift is equally appalling as its a massive ecosystem Redhats done virtually everything to control and nothing to distribute or competently document. its painfully obvious IBM wants you to hire a consultant to build and deploy it...There is an open-source offering, but it cant be easily rolled into an airgap installation and it suffers the same level of byzantine and poorly written documentation as Quay. K3S/RKE2 easily beat it for nearly every use case. Then theres the docker fiasco which unsurprisingly neither of these juggernauts wanted to deal with the others bullshit so now dockers broken in all but the most monied instances of IBM hardware. redhat became so absolutely resolute about podman being "everything you can do i can do too" that it has a fucking compose option to translate docker compose into podman because people like compose but rewriting your appstack to pods when you dont want to be arsed with k8s is sort of a non-starter.

dralley 4y ago
> The hat killed Centos because some IBM midlevel manager needed to make quota for a bonus, and they didnt stop to realize just how unsuccessful this tactic was for Oracle/MySQL. I cannot stress enough how untrue this is. See my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35586311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35586311 RHEL clones were always going to exist, this is and was obvious, and there are more of them now than ever. That's not the point. The point is that now there is a way for RHEL clones, including ones from competitors like Oracle, have some way of contributing back to RHEL, whereas beforehand if you were a CentOS user your only possible course of action was to file a bug in the RHEL bug tracker and wait for a Red Hat employee to prioritize it. The business benefit is also a technical benefit - the ability to fix bugs and add features is no longer strictly limited by the amount of engineering capacity Red Hat can contribute. Companies like Facebook use CentOS Stream at scale internally and make contributions that ultimately end up in RHEL, users and vendors have a target they can integrate against early without needing gated betas, etc.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zzzeek 4y ago
Hi - I work at Red Hat for the last eight years, long before IBM had anything to do with us, and I cannot stress enough how much IBM is *nowhere* to be seen in not just our day to day engineering jobs, but pretty much not even periodically. I know nobody at IBM, I have no email addresses of anyone at IBM, nothing we get in our inbox (and we get a lot) ever has anything to do with "IBM" in it, I have no links or access to any IBM-specific intranets or resources of any kind. They truly have stuck to their promise of not changing Red Hat; our support system is the same, we still respond to bugs, ask for SOS reports, and customer support people do collaborative screenshares, just as we were always doing, there's nothing different about any of that. There have been no top-down changes or decrees or anything I'm aware of that would change how we do any of that stuff. as far as Podman it's all I use for all of my server environments and I like it a lot better than Docker. It's simpler without all the weird "Dockerish" things getting in the way. Not having a monolithic server hang the whole machine due to a misbehaving container is well worth it.

dralley 4y ago

> The hat killed Centos because some IBM midlevel manager needed to make quota for a bonus, and they didnt stop to realize just how unsuccessful this tactic was for Oracle/MySQL. I cannot stress enough how untrue this is. See my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35586311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35586311 RHEL clones were always going to exist, this is and was obvious, and there are more of them now than ever. That's not the point. The point is that now there is a way for RHEL clones, including ones from competitors like Oracle, have some way of contributing back to RHEL, whereas beforehand if you were a CentOS user your only possible course of action was to file a bug in the RHEL bug tracker and wait for a Red Hat employee to prioritize it. The business benefit is also a technical benefit - the ability to fix bugs and add features is no longer strictly limited by the amount of engineering capacity Red Hat can contribute. Companies like Facebook use CentOS Stream at scale internally and make contributions that ultimately end up in RHEL, users and vendors have a target they can integrate against early without needing gated betas, etc.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zzzeek 4y ago

Hi - I work at Red Hat for the last eight years, long before IBM had anything to do with us, and I cannot stress enough how much IBM is *nowhere* to be seen in not just our day to day engineering jobs, but pretty much not even periodically. I know nobody at IBM, I have no email addresses of anyone at IBM, nothing we get in our inbox (and we get a lot) ever has anything to do with "IBM" in it, I have no links or access to any IBM-specific intranets or resources of any kind. They truly have stuck to their promise of not changing Red Hat; our support system is the same, we still respond to bugs, ask for SOS reports, and customer support people do collaborative screenshares, just as we were always doing, there's nothing different about any of that. There have been no top-down changes or decrees or anything I'm aware of that would change how we do any of that stuff. as far as Podman it's all I use for all of my server environments and I like it a lot better than Docker. It's simpler without all the weird "Dockerish" things getting in the way. Not having a monolithic server hang the whole machine due to a misbehaving container is well worth it.