11 ms·

Rocky Linux is a fine successor to CentOS and was created by one of the original founders of CentOS, Gregory Kurtzer. https://rockylinux.org/ https://rockylinu

Rocky Linux is a fine successor to CentOS and was created by one of the original founders of CentOS, Gregory Kurtzer. https://rockylinux.org/ https://rockylinux.org/ https://rockylinux.org/about/ https://rockylinux.org/about/ If you need enterprise support RHEL tends to be a default choice. If you cannot afford RHEL or do not need enterprise support, Rocky Linux fills the role that CentOS once did.

0x6c6f6c 3y ago
Another suitable option, which has handled the situation of Red Hat source RPM releases[1] quite a bit better imo, is Alma Linux. https://almalinux.org/ https://almalinux.org/ Similar goal, but is working more directly upstream with Red Hat[2] as opposed to the (as I last had read) undisclosed and non-open approach that Rocky Linux has taken. 1: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s... 2: https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chasil 3y ago
  As I understand it, Alma is following the stream release, which is slightly upstream and less stable than RHEL. https://linux.slashdot.org/story/23/07/29/0214234/almalinux-discovers-working-with-red-hat-and-centos-stream-isnt-easy https://linux.slashdot.org/story/23/07/29/0214234/almalinux-... Rocky and SUSE Liberty Linux aim to be bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL, which has become more difficult.
  - bityard 3y ago
    This is the first time I have heard of SUSE Liberty Linux as an alternative to RHEL... when I went searching for information on it, all I could find was the product page and some press releases. It's hard to read between the lines of the marketing speak but it sounds like it's just a suite of paid support options for existing RHEL/CentOS deployments and not a RHEL derivative that one can just download and use. Unless I am missing something?
    - freedomben 3y ago
      No it is actually a RHEL derivative, but personally I wouldn't go that direction unless you intend to eventually move to other SUSE stuff. They committed a chunk of budget initially to maintain it, but I'm sure they view it as a stepping stone or bridge SLE.
  - iseletsk 3y ago
    Alma is not following stream. It sues stream sources but selects only the right patches - to be fully binary compatible with RHEL
    - chasil 3y ago
      > It sues stream sources Beware the Freudian slip.
  - heywoodlh 3y ago
    > which is slightly upstream and less stable than RHEL As a user who almost exclusively uses rolling release OS-es, is this actually something people care about? CentOS Stream is downstream of Fedora -- and Fedora is a rock solid base. It's not like CentOS Stream is riddled with bugs, broken features, etc.
    - orthoxerox 3y ago
      Yes, this is something people running servers want. A lot of enterprisey software is supported only on LTS releases of operating systems.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      If you wanted a distro that was similar to but not exactly the same as RHEL, then Fedora itself would be a way better choice. And if you care that it's exactly the same as RHEL, then CentOS Stream doesn't cut it.
      - dralley 3y ago
        This is absurd. CentOS Stream isn't just "similar", it has ABI compatibility with RHEL, it's waaaaay more stable than Fedora because the most it can be different from RHEL in general terms is the difference between two Y-releases (e.g. 9.Y -> 9.Y+1)
  - bennyvasquez 3y ago
    AlmaLinux matches releases and versions with RHEL. More clarification in this 2-minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNMnajmyLaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNMnajmyLaA
  - dissident_coder 3y ago
    Alma Linux is getting their source packages from Stream but they are using the exact same versions that are in the current Redhat release.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Yeah Alma is a much better option if you care about the behavior and attitudes of the people behind the project. The Rocky people are antagonistic toward Red Hat and view them as somewhat an enemy (which seems so weird to me as without Red Hat, they couldn't possibly exist). They strictly want to take what Red Hat sells and rebuild and distribute it for free. The Alma people on the other hand view themselves as partners and contributors to Red Hat's ecosystem. They want to make their product available for free, but they upstream as much as possible and add actual value to the ecosystem. If you don't care about any of that, it's still better to choose Alma IMHO because their approach (following the letter and spirit of "the law") is a lot more sustainable than Rocky's exploit-the-system approach.
  - tux1968 3y ago
    > They strictly want to take what Red Hat sells and rebuild and distribute it for free. I think this is an unfair framing. Rather, they want to take all the GPL source code that Red Hat is obligated to make available, and distribute it freely. They believe this is in accordance with both the law and the software license that Red Hat agreed to, when using it as a basis for their business in the first place. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight, or a strong opinion on the matter. But we should at least fairly represent each parties position.
    - dralley 3y ago
      All of the source code is already available, in CentOS Stream, from which RHEL is built in the first place. What they want to do, is do an exact rebuild of RHEL without having to go through the effort of putting the distribution together themselves, matching the versions that are used in a particular version of RHEL against what is available via CentOS Stream.
      - skybrian 3y ago
        And that's perfectly fine under open source licenses. You are allowed to build and redistribute your own binaries. That's both spirit and letter. Don't fall for people making up additional terms that aren't in the license.
CodeCompost 3y ago
I would avoid Rocky since it is now resting on very shaky foundations.
- keikobadthebad 3y ago
  Could you be specific? Else it sounds like you're just FUDding it.
  - heywoodlh 3y ago
    My understanding is that since Red Hat restricted the source availability for RHEL, Rocky is using the following loopholes to gain binary compatibility with RHEL: 1. Using OCI images of RHEL (i.e. on Docker Hub) 2. Using cloud server images of RHEL They outlined their plans for this in June of 2023[0]. Red Hat’s official stance is that downstream distros like Rocky or AlmaLinux should be basing off of CentOS Stream — that would allow all the EL distributions to contribute and use the same OS base[1]. AlmaLinux pivoted to this method[2] — which seems like a more sustainable approach to me. My opinion: blows my mind that people who value Enterprise Linux would be willing to continue to use a distro like Rocky that actively works against/around the supported route its upstream provider suggests. (Personally, I don’t find value in the EL ecosystem, I prefer rolling releases everywhere when possible) [0] https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ [1] https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s... [2] https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      I fail to see what separates Alma from CentOS Stream at this point The entire Propose of CentOS was Binary Compatibility with RHEL, largely for Vendor compliance reasons, if a vendor of a commercial software product validated RHEL 7 for their software running CentOS 7 was also supported Running CentOS Stream, or now Alma Linux would not be as their are no longer binary compatible with RHEL. the Hostility of IBM and Redhat here has lead me to transition 100% of the CentOS Server I managed to Ubuntu Last year... The software vendors that i use all quickly validated Ubuntu as an alternative to CentOS after the original CentOS Stream announcement which made is a easy choice for me.. I will never use RHEL or RHEL based distribution again at this point so I really do not care about the future of Alma or Rocky either >Personally, I don’t find value in the EL ecosystem, I prefer rolling releases everywhere when possible if you are running ERP Systems, LOB Apps, or other critical functions that measure their code life in decades not weeks then EL systems are required. I do not want the system to change as the app i am running has not changed. I want Stability, and security not new features or more performance or even new hardware
jasoneckert 3y ago
If you can't justify the cost of RHEL for your use case, I believe Fedora would be the best alternative at this time since its development has not been affected by the changes recently made to CentOS, and it provides a near identical feature set.
- orev 3y ago
  Fedora is a moving target that changes every 6 months. That’s not suitable for an enterprise application.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > and it provides a near identical feature set. The leading features of CentOS were 1. Absurdly stable; keep updating the same version in place for a decade without changing it. 2. Drop-in compatible with proprietary drivers and applications published for RHEL. Fedora is not a replacement for CentOS.
- dralley 3y ago
  There is no planet on which Fedora makes more sense than CentOS Stream as a CentOS replacement.
- ktm5j 3y ago
  I love fedora, it's been my daily driver for a long time.. but it's not designed to be stable. Things break. Usually nothing you can't work past, but you don't want to spend that kind of effort to maintain stable servers.
bityard 3y ago
Personally it would not be my first choice since I am somewhat allergic to anything with the word Oracle in it, but another option for those in the enterprise space might be Oracle Linux: https://www.oracle.com/linux/ https://www.oracle.com/linux/ They claim full compatibility with RHEL and don't require a licence/login to download and install. And they offer paid support if you need it.
- chasil 3y ago
  They also add btrfs and a bunch of drivers back into their custom kernel that RHEL explicitly removes, so it runs on a lot more hardware.
verdverm 3y ago
I'm doing this migration right now, first task of the year.

0x6c6f6c 3y ago

Another suitable option, which has handled the situation of Red Hat source RPM releases[1] quite a bit better imo, is Alma Linux. https://almalinux.org/ https://almalinux.org/ Similar goal, but is working more directly upstream with Red Hat[2] as opposed to the (as I last had read) undisclosed and non-open approach that Rocky Linux has taken. 1: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s... 2: https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chasil 3y ago
As I understand it, Alma is following the stream release, which is slightly upstream and less stable than RHEL. https://linux.slashdot.org/story/23/07/29/0214234/almalinux-discovers-working-with-red-hat-and-centos-stream-isnt-easy https://linux.slashdot.org/story/23/07/29/0214234/almalinux-... Rocky and SUSE Liberty Linux aim to be bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL, which has become more difficult.
- bityard 3y ago
  This is the first time I have heard of SUSE Liberty Linux as an alternative to RHEL... when I went searching for information on it, all I could find was the product page and some press releases. It's hard to read between the lines of the marketing speak but it sounds like it's just a suite of paid support options for existing RHEL/CentOS deployments and not a RHEL derivative that one can just download and use. Unless I am missing something?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    No it is actually a RHEL derivative, but personally I wouldn't go that direction unless you intend to eventually move to other SUSE stuff. They committed a chunk of budget initially to maintain it, but I'm sure they view it as a stepping stone or bridge SLE.
- iseletsk 3y ago
  Alma is not following stream. It sues stream sources but selects only the right patches - to be fully binary compatible with RHEL
  - chasil 3y ago
    > It sues stream sources Beware the Freudian slip.
- heywoodlh 3y ago
  > which is slightly upstream and less stable than RHEL As a user who almost exclusively uses rolling release OS-es, is this actually something people care about? CentOS Stream is downstream of Fedora -- and Fedora is a rock solid base. It's not like CentOS Stream is riddled with bugs, broken features, etc.
  - orthoxerox 3y ago
    Yes, this is something people running servers want. A lot of enterprisey software is supported only on LTS releases of operating systems.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    If you wanted a distro that was similar to but not exactly the same as RHEL, then Fedora itself would be a way better choice. And if you care that it's exactly the same as RHEL, then CentOS Stream doesn't cut it.
    - dralley 3y ago
      This is absurd. CentOS Stream isn't just "similar", it has ABI compatibility with RHEL, it's waaaaay more stable than Fedora because the most it can be different from RHEL in general terms is the difference between two Y-releases (e.g. 9.Y -> 9.Y+1)
- bennyvasquez 3y ago
  AlmaLinux matches releases and versions with RHEL. More clarification in this 2-minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNMnajmyLaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNMnajmyLaA
- dissident_coder 3y ago
  Alma Linux is getting their source packages from Stream but they are using the exact same versions that are in the current Redhat release.
freedomben 3y ago
Yeah Alma is a much better option if you care about the behavior and attitudes of the people behind the project. The Rocky people are antagonistic toward Red Hat and view them as somewhat an enemy (which seems so weird to me as without Red Hat, they couldn't possibly exist). They strictly want to take what Red Hat sells and rebuild and distribute it for free. The Alma people on the other hand view themselves as partners and contributors to Red Hat's ecosystem. They want to make their product available for free, but they upstream as much as possible and add actual value to the ecosystem. If you don't care about any of that, it's still better to choose Alma IMHO because their approach (following the letter and spirit of "the law") is a lot more sustainable than Rocky's exploit-the-system approach.
- tux1968 3y ago
  > They strictly want to take what Red Hat sells and rebuild and distribute it for free. I think this is an unfair framing. Rather, they want to take all the GPL source code that Red Hat is obligated to make available, and distribute it freely. They believe this is in accordance with both the law and the software license that Red Hat agreed to, when using it as a basis for their business in the first place. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight, or a strong opinion on the matter. But we should at least fairly represent each parties position.
  - dralley 3y ago
    All of the source code is already available, in CentOS Stream, from which RHEL is built in the first place. What they want to do, is do an exact rebuild of RHEL without having to go through the effort of putting the distribution together themselves, matching the versions that are used in a particular version of RHEL against what is available via CentOS Stream.
    - skybrian 3y ago
      And that's perfectly fine under open source licenses. You are allowed to build and redistribute your own binaries. That's both spirit and letter. Don't fall for people making up additional terms that aren't in the license.

CodeCompost 3y ago

I would avoid Rocky since it is now resting on very shaky foundations.

keikobadthebad 3y ago
Could you be specific? Else it sounds like you're just FUDding it.
- heywoodlh 3y ago
  My understanding is that since Red Hat restricted the source availability for RHEL, Rocky is using the following loopholes to gain binary compatibility with RHEL: 1. Using OCI images of RHEL (i.e. on Docker Hub) 2. Using cloud server images of RHEL They outlined their plans for this in June of 2023[0]. Red Hat’s official stance is that downstream distros like Rocky or AlmaLinux should be basing off of CentOS Stream — that would allow all the EL distributions to contribute and use the same OS base[1]. AlmaLinux pivoted to this method[2] — which seems like a more sustainable approach to me. My opinion: blows my mind that people who value Enterprise Linux would be willing to continue to use a distro like Rocky that actively works against/around the supported route its upstream provider suggests. (Personally, I don’t find value in the EL ecosystem, I prefer rolling releases everywhere when possible) [0] https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ [1] https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s... [2] https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    I fail to see what separates Alma from CentOS Stream at this point The entire Propose of CentOS was Binary Compatibility with RHEL, largely for Vendor compliance reasons, if a vendor of a commercial software product validated RHEL 7 for their software running CentOS 7 was also supported Running CentOS Stream, or now Alma Linux would not be as their are no longer binary compatible with RHEL. the Hostility of IBM and Redhat here has lead me to transition 100% of the CentOS Server I managed to Ubuntu Last year... The software vendors that i use all quickly validated Ubuntu as an alternative to CentOS after the original CentOS Stream announcement which made is a easy choice for me.. I will never use RHEL or RHEL based distribution again at this point so I really do not care about the future of Alma or Rocky either >Personally, I don’t find value in the EL ecosystem, I prefer rolling releases everywhere when possible if you are running ERP Systems, LOB Apps, or other critical functions that measure their code life in decades not weeks then EL systems are required. I do not want the system to change as the app i am running has not changed. I want Stability, and security not new features or more performance or even new hardware

jasoneckert 3y ago

If you can't justify the cost of RHEL for your use case, I believe Fedora would be the best alternative at this time since its development has not been affected by the changes recently made to CentOS, and it provides a near identical feature set.

orev 3y ago
Fedora is a moving target that changes every 6 months. That’s not suitable for an enterprise application.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> and it provides a near identical feature set. The leading features of CentOS were 1. Absurdly stable; keep updating the same version in place for a decade without changing it. 2. Drop-in compatible with proprietary drivers and applications published for RHEL. Fedora is not a replacement for CentOS.
dralley 3y ago
There is no planet on which Fedora makes more sense than CentOS Stream as a CentOS replacement.
ktm5j 3y ago
I love fedora, it's been my daily driver for a long time.. but it's not designed to be stable. Things break. Usually nothing you can't work past, but you don't want to spend that kind of effort to maintain stable servers.

bityard 3y ago

Personally it would not be my first choice since I am somewhat allergic to anything with the word Oracle in it, but another option for those in the enterprise space might be Oracle Linux: https://www.oracle.com/linux/ https://www.oracle.com/linux/ They claim full compatibility with RHEL and don't require a licence/login to download and install. And they offer paid support if you need it.

chasil 3y ago
They also add btrfs and a bunch of drivers back into their custom kernel that RHEL explicitly removes, so it runs on a lot more hardware.

verdverm 3y ago

I'm doing this migration right now, first task of the year.