7 ms·
Final nail in the coffin of Red Hat rebuilds?
- raincom 3y agoAll customers of Redhat should start daily sync of all source RPMs. That way, Redhat can't find out who is sharing source RPMs with Alma and Rocky. Right now, customers just sync binary RPMs.
- rurban 3y agoYou cannot just use arbitrary titles. Needs to be renamed to "Furthering the evolution of CentOS Stream"
- awill 3y agoThis is awful. It seems Red Hat (and probably IBM) are unhappy that Alma and Rocky have so successfully replaced the old CentOS.
- fredski42 3y agoWhy? Afaik they are build from Centos Stream, just like RHEL. So nothing changes.
- awill 3y agoThen why is Red Hat doing this?
- raincom 3y agoOne of the FAANGs has/had exclusive deal with Oracle for Oracle Enterprise Linux, as Oracle charges a way less than Redhat does. Redhat/IBM figured out how many large enterprises use Oracle Linux; now they want to go after those enterprise customers to show more return on investment, as IBM paid $34B to acquire Redhat.
- omniglottal 3y agoManagement doesn't directly know the pain of an engineer. This business heirarchy is akin to management being the body's "hands" while engineers are the "feet". This easily accommodates the option of shooting one's self in the foot.
- iDemonix 3y agoBecause they're just IBM with a hat on now.
- jabl 3y agoI thought they were using git.centos.org which used to be the RHEL sources? Centos stream sources are what will become the next RHEL major or minor release. So if(?) RH is adding further stuff on top of Centos stream after forking those changes would not be available to non-customers?
- jacooper 3y agoHow? Rocky Linux is a RHEL clone, and RHEL isn't a direct copy from CentOS stream
- phone8675309 3y agoNeither are building from CentOS Stream - they are building from the same source that is in the final RHEL release, not a rolling release like CentOS Stream.
- JohnFen 3y agoI think what Red Hat did to CentOS is a real shame. But seeing that it's Red Hat, it's not surprising.
- lproven 3y agoTrue but misses the real point, which is that RH should never have acquired CentOS in the first place.
- JohnFen 3y agoI don't think I missed the real point. That point was the major part of what I was saying. Sadly, Red Hat is the Microsoft of the Linux world, and so I grieve for anything they touch.
- pamhalpert 3y agothe community was dying, the single digit people maintaining it wanted to quit doing it
- lproven 3y agoI've heard similar before. So? The problem with that for RH was what, exactly? There was White Box Linux, Scientific Linux, PUIAS Linux, etc. And Oracle Linux of course.
- beckler 3y agoFor those who are out of the loop, like I was, here is how I'm understanding this... "CentOS" tracked behind RHEL, and is considered more stable? Regardless, CentOS 7 is the last supported major version, and it's reaching EOL soon and will not be maintained. This sounds like a push to get those who use CentOS (free) to move to RHEL (paid) to stay in the long-cycle ecosystem. "CentOS Stream" is a flavor that tracks ahead of RHEL, is less stable, and is really meant for those who develop on RHEL. Since the original CentOS is no longer supported, you had new flavors come up (specifically Rocky Linux and Alma Linux) designed to fill the void to track behind RHEL. However, it appears they rely on the open-source RHEL for their builds. It sounds like this is going away now, and the only open-source linux RedHat is gonna publish freely is CentOS Stream. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or missed something!
- raincom 3y agoBackports are important for long term support. Say, you have some-pkg-1.2.5-83.el9.x86_64, CentOS Stream will have some-pkg-2.10.32-3.el9.x86_64 (with extra features, enhancments, security fixes), while customers want just CVEs to be back ported to some-pkg-1.2.x This creates problems for long term support, as it requires more resources, who understand the code base for some-pkg in order to apply selective fixes. Right now, if one knows how to build rpms and how to integrate them is enough to become a clone of downstream RHEL. I think, only Oracle can pull off this feat, as they can put more people to work to solve this problems. 1:1 compatibility becomes hard, as 1000+ packages need to be taken care of.
- jacooper 3y agoOld centOS is just a RHEL clone. The only supported version is CentOS 7, which is clone of RHEL 7
- tinus_hn 3y agoIsn’t it like all these alternative distributions have to do is buy one license for RHEL and get the sources RedHat uses?
- lproven 3y ago
- jaylittle 3y agoWow. Redhat / IBM is no longer going to publicly make the source code to RHEL releases available. Alma and Rocky Linux literally just died. Screw you IBM... and the creepy Linux kids coattails that ya rode in on.
- mmrezaie 3y agoIs there a link to rockylinux or almalinux expectation of this news? I just finalized choosing Rockylinux for our next generation HPC clusters! [edit] this is the link: https://rockylinux.org/news/2023-06-22-press-release/ https://rockylinux.org/news/2023-06-22-press-release/
- jonathanspw 3y agohttps://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/ https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/
- steve1977 3y agoHow does that work out with the GPL?
- jraph 3y agoIt works out ok. The GPL only requires Red Hat to provide the source code to its users, not the whole world. A license requiring publication on the internet would be considered non-free by the GNU project. It would also be rejected by Debian because it would fail the Desert Island test [1]. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest
- apple4ever 3y agoWhat a massive hole in the GPL, and its wild it would be considered "non-free" when most people would actually consider it free. Another reason I do not like that license.
- steve1977 3y agoBut can Red Hat restrict its users from further distributing the source code or would they be allowed to do that?
- jraph 3y agoThey can't, but they could do something like GRSecurity, saying that they would end their contract with / stop giving anybody who distributes it further updates.
- iDemonix 3y agoAnother irritating move from Red Hat, likely driven by their unhappiness with the popularity of Alma/Rocky instead of a mass migration to RHEL they had probably hoped for. As the source is still available, but not publicly, could it be that these alternate flavours enter in to a license agreement with Red Hat that's community funded?