5 ms·

OK, this is time. We need new RedHat - distro/firm that DO development and pays for it. So earns too... Which non-rpm based distro could be base for this ? Bec

by Woodi 3y ago

OK, this is time. We need new RedHat - distro/firm that DO development and pays for it. So earns too... Which non-rpm based distro could be base for this ? Becouse rpm-based distros are (except RH) are pure joke, a re-compilators. Debian if you want to start from scratch, Ubuntu could be if they finally stard developing source code instead of looking something to sell. Not Arch, not Void - not business mentality. Maybe Void as a base after revriting everything into musl, including things like Oracle ;) NixOs is in best technical possition but so far just sources (big) set and no comparable to RH development expertise... Actually no one have RH-like expertise as far as I know. So new business-level distro needs funding for 15 years or so ? "Back to the basics!" then :) Use stable, backcompatible, futureproof technologies ! C, C++, Perl (hehe he), git and maybe finally Lua, D and Julia ? In US Ruby probably too. Drop non-sense things like Gnome and moust of WWW insanity. Or just wait what new IBM will bring to rest of us... Like Winland with it's by-design over-complications and imposibilities to have stable env.

Conan_Kudo 3y ago
> Which non-rpm based distro could be base for this ? Becouse rpm-based distros are (except RH) are pure joke [...] > Actually no one have RH-like expertise as far as I know. So what is SUSE, chopped liver? They've been around for slightly longer and do a lot upstream too. Red Hat and SUSE have been around doing a lot, and it's a shame that so many people don't want to pay for actual commercial Linux expertise. :(
- Woodi 3y ago
  > So what is SUSE, chopped liver? I didn't mentioned SUSE because: - they are re-compilators. With long history and didn't sold in recent years, yes, but still small compared to RH. You can hear they do things, have customers not only from Germany so they have a lot of expertise but to my nose they are not realy self-sufficient without RH. They are more like small mechanic shop close to global factory - low throughput. Am I hand waving too much ? It's becouse SUSE pro&cons are not realy known. So moust likely they are small shop. Even if 2nd after RH. - they use rpm's so with a bit of pressure or becouse of management wanting to cover asses they or their customers will easilly roll back to IBM - SUSE do not look like wanting to be global. Not saying it is easy or even possible without controlling your own cpu's production... Also: - I asked for non-rpm distros - I personally am burned out with rpms since 90's - blame RH for not implementing Debian like net features years after Debian did it - git repo is better binary package. Source tarballs for LTS versions, done. IMO. And tar can be replaced by whatever in "tarbals"... > Red Hat and SUSE have been around doing a lot, and it's a shame that so many people don't want to pay for actual commercial Linux expertise. :( Agree. But easy to understood: a) MS is monopoly, Apple do not count as platform for development (multi-billion corporations don't count and even them do not develop on Apple - just modern "terminals" :) ) b) no serious RH alternative - as in: security and open source code development, including new features and apps
  - viraptor 3y ago
    > they use rpm's so with a bit of pressure or becouse of management wanting to cover asses they or their customers will easilly roll back to IBM That's a weird take. Moving to a different package format is usually trivial. If you're using fpm, it may be as simple as a single option. It's the change to anything in the environment that causes issues. Different services / configs / defaults etc. is what gets you when packaging.
    - Woodi 3y ago
      > Moving to a different package format is usually trivial It is not. It is more like tear down and rebuild everything. By humans. And env/configs on the top. Look on it from management perspective - sometimes zero technical knowledge but a lot marketing assurance of effortless continuation. Because "format" is not the only variable, it realy means whole corporation install base. Even if you have build farms ready. Just imagine that discussions: "There is only one way to be sure..." ;)
      - viraptor 3y ago
        Sure it is a rebuild of everything, but the build steps don't change almost at all, just the boilerplate around them. Seriously, I've done a few distros, changing the format is the trivial part. You can even covert many end results automatically https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RPM/AlienHowto https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RPM/AlienHowto The environment is the main/only problem.
themoonisachees 3y ago
Anyone that doesnt offer support is meaningless. Redhat's costumer base is business who need linux but need support, and 27/7 with a 4h-SLA. Anyone who doesn't offer this is dead in the water as far as poaching RHEL's costumer base. In fact, companies care very little about open-source, they just want linux with support. Previously paying $600 per server per year would otherwise be stupid when CentOS existed.

by Woodi 3y ago

Conan_Kudo 3y ago

> Which non-rpm based distro could be base for this ? Becouse rpm-based distros are (except RH) are pure joke [...] > Actually no one have RH-like expertise as far as I know. So what is SUSE, chopped liver? They've been around for slightly longer and do a lot upstream too. Red Hat and SUSE have been around doing a lot, and it's a shame that so many people don't want to pay for actual commercial Linux expertise. :(

Woodi 3y ago
> So what is SUSE, chopped liver? I didn't mentioned SUSE because: - they are re-compilators. With long history and didn't sold in recent years, yes, but still small compared to RH. You can hear they do things, have customers not only from Germany so they have a lot of expertise but to my nose they are not realy self-sufficient without RH. They are more like small mechanic shop close to global factory - low throughput. Am I hand waving too much ? It's becouse SUSE pro&cons are not realy known. So moust likely they are small shop. Even if 2nd after RH. - they use rpm's so with a bit of pressure or becouse of management wanting to cover asses they or their customers will easilly roll back to IBM - SUSE do not look like wanting to be global. Not saying it is easy or even possible without controlling your own cpu's production... Also: - I asked for non-rpm distros - I personally am burned out with rpms since 90's - blame RH for not implementing Debian like net features years after Debian did it - git repo is better binary package. Source tarballs for LTS versions, done. IMO. And tar can be replaced by whatever in "tarbals"... > Red Hat and SUSE have been around doing a lot, and it's a shame that so many people don't want to pay for actual commercial Linux expertise. :( Agree. But easy to understood: a) MS is monopoly, Apple do not count as platform for development (multi-billion corporations don't count and even them do not develop on Apple - just modern "terminals" :) ) b) no serious RH alternative - as in: security and open source code development, including new features and apps
- viraptor 3y ago
  > they use rpm's so with a bit of pressure or becouse of management wanting to cover asses they or their customers will easilly roll back to IBM That's a weird take. Moving to a different package format is usually trivial. If you're using fpm, it may be as simple as a single option. It's the change to anything in the environment that causes issues. Different services / configs / defaults etc. is what gets you when packaging.
  - Woodi 3y ago
    > Moving to a different package format is usually trivial It is not. It is more like tear down and rebuild everything. By humans. And env/configs on the top. Look on it from management perspective - sometimes zero technical knowledge but a lot marketing assurance of effortless continuation. Because "format" is not the only variable, it realy means whole corporation install base. Even if you have build farms ready. Just imagine that discussions: "There is only one way to be sure..." ;)
    - viraptor 3y ago
      Sure it is a rebuild of everything, but the build steps don't change almost at all, just the boilerplate around them. Seriously, I've done a few distros, changing the format is the trivial part. You can even covert many end results automatically https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RPM/AlienHowto https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RPM/AlienHowto The environment is the main/only problem.

themoonisachees 3y ago

Anyone that doesnt offer support is meaningless. Redhat's costumer base is business who need linux but need support, and 27/7 with a 4h-SLA. Anyone who doesn't offer this is dead in the water as far as poaching RHEL's costumer base. In fact, companies care very little about open-source, they just want linux with support. Previously paying $600 per server per year would otherwise be stupid when CentOS existed.