7 ms·
Out of curiosity what do others see as viable Red Hat Linux alternatives? If I was choosing a server OS today, I personally would probably pick Debian.
by spicyusername 3y ago
Out of curiosity what do others see as viable Red Hat Linux alternatives?
If I was choosing a server OS today, I personally would probably pick Debian.
- akvadrako 3y agoGo with an immutable distribution, something like CoreOS. Then run everything in containers. Major version upgrades have less risk of breaking, while rollbacks become an option. And the attack surface is lower.
- oneshtein 3y agoAttack surface will be sum of CoreOS surface and surface of containers. It can be lower only if surface of containers will be negative. :-/
- mirekrusin 3y agopopOS - it really surprised me after long time Ubuntu, before Debian user.
- leonheld 3y agopopOS as a server operating system? That doesn't make much sense.
- mirekrusin 3y agoMy bad, somehow I missed server part.
- frantathefranta 3y agoAlmaLinux is being heavily floated as an option in my place of work. We have RHEL7 and 8 licenses but due to pricing might switch.
- derekp7 3y agoThere are a number of shops where it is advantageous to have a paid RHEL subscription, mostly when there are non-technically-focused management involved. When there is an issue I've had managers in the past say "Quit dicking around on the internet and get someone on the phone". For these shops, you don't need the paid enterprise offering across the board (dev, testing, etc) so that is where an EL rebuild is handy. In those cases you don't want too much different between prod and test/dev, but you don't need the paid support or priority patches on internal test hosts.
- 6c696e7578 3y agoDo the managers think the person getting the ticket at RH will not be dicking around on the internet?
- ta1243 3y agoManagers think the blame parcel has been moved to a supplier
- hestefisk 3y agoIt’s called “risk management” in corporate speak.
- ta1243 3y agoRisk management is nothing to do with removing the risk from the company, indeed increasing risk is often acceptable. It's about removing risk from your department.
- 6c696e7578 3y agoYeah, this does seem to be the prevailing way in management layers.
- op00to 3y agoGenerally no, based on past experience with RH support, they're not just dicking around on the internet to find the answer. Most of the folks I know at RH support have been there 5+ years, and are life-long users and community participants in the project they're supporting.
- mikae1 3y agoFor business? https://www.suse.com/solutions/business-critical-linux/ https://www.suse.com/solutions/business-critical-linux/ For home server use: Tumbleweed, Leap or MicroOS depending on your personality. :)
- PlutoIsAPlanet 3y agoThere isn't really any, only Debian/Ubuntu gets close. RHEL and its clones are supported with updates for 10 years, often ship with "more modern" server software than Debian does (e.g. firewalld, podman, systemd etc) and DNF, whilst slower, still blows apt in terms of feature set (e.g. transcriptional, roll-backs, history, offline upgrades) There's also SUSE.
- mikae1 3y ago> There isn't really any, only Debian/Ubuntu gets close. > There's also SUSE. So, why doesn't SUSE get close?
- traceroute66 3y ago> RHEL and its clones My understanding is that the problem with RHEL clones is just that, that they are clones. From what I've read, the problem is that RHEL will often make changes to suit their various enterprise customers, for example I seem to recall reading somewhere that OpenSSL was one of many things "touched" in that way. I hear many good things about DNF vs apt, but I'm too worried by the skeletons in the clone cupboard.
- count 3y agoRHEL saying '8' or '9' is supported for 10 years is misleading af. Each 'minor version' (which are, in fact, sometimes large changes!) is supported for it's own specific time period. Odd numbered (8.5, 8.7) for example are only supported for 6 months. https://access.redhat.com/sites/default/files/images/337_rhel_9_life_cycle_updates_0423.png https://access.redhat.com/sites/default/files/images/337_rhe... It's terrifying actually.
- adql 3y agoDebian is relatively problem-free compared to RHEL; and update-in-place also works. Sooo much less fuckery, packages are just there and don't require installing/buying some random addon just to have DRBD+pacemaker cluster (that RHEL for some reason put into separate repo and subscription).
- bombcar 3y agoI went with Ubuntu because the long-term support Debian at the time would have required me to hand-compile or add package sources for the version of whatever it was (php?) I needed. Ubuntu LTS is long enough for me, and seems to work without complaints. At home I run Gentoo because I like to fomit and funroll.
- tapoxi 3y agoProfessionally, I'm running everything on Debian because it's always been around, always rock solid, isn't going to make any stupid decisions for profit, and containerizes well. If I'm at a place that's willing to pay for RHEL I will go RHEL, because the support doesn't hurt and they do a great job contributing to upstream projects. For personal machines, I don't mind Fedora Server (or CentOS Stream) because I can handle the more frequent upgrade cycle.
- totallywrong 3y agoFedora, especially one of the recent immutable versions.
- Mikhail_K 3y agoDevuan and Void Linux are systemd-free alternatives. The first one is a Debian fork, so should be very familiar to anyone with Debian/Ubuntu experience.
- rurban 3y agoIf stable then Alma or Rocky. If unstable then Centos or Fedora. I also have to use Ubuntu and Debian, and they are miles below Redhat derivates.