6 ms·

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 complia

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

indigodaddy 3y ago
AFAIK, Alma has committed to continued full RHEL binary compatibility.
- heywoodlh 3y ago
  Incorrect, according to their FAQ[0] and the original article I linked[1]: > What does ABI/binary compatible with RHEL mean? > In July of 2023, we announced (opens new window) that we were shifting our goal from being a downstream rebuild of RHEL to maintaining ABI compatibility with RHEL. For the AlmaLinux team that means that everything from software applications to kernel modules that work on RHEL will work on AlmaLinux, and if they don't we would consider that a bug. TL;DR: they are using CentOS Stream as their upstream. EDIT: Sorry, you're correct -- I was thinking you meant their original goal of "bug-for-bug" compatibility with RHEL. [0] https://wiki.almalinux.org/FAQ.html#what-does-abi-binary-compatible-with-rhel-mean https://wiki.almalinux.org/FAQ.html#what-does-abi-binary-com... [1] https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > For a typical user, this will mean very little change in your use of AlmaLinux. Red Hat-compatible applications will still be able to run on AlmaLinux OS, and your installs of AlmaLinux will continue to receive timely security updates. The most remarkable potential impact of the change is that we will no longer be held to the line of “bug-for-bug compatibility” with Red Hat, and that means that we can now accept bug fixes outside of Red Hat’s release cycle. While that means some AlmaLinux OS users may encounter bugs that are not in Red Hat, we may also accept patches for bugs that have not yet been accepted upstream, or shipped downstream. * https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/
bennyvasquez 3y ago
Our primary difference: a 10-year lifecycle, with a focus on stability. I'd say that your use case for CentOS might have been vendor compliance, but our user base doesn't agree that's the only use case. I'd recommend listening to this podcast with Neal Gompa about Red Hat vs IBM at this point: https://hackaday.com/2023/12/27/floss-weekly-episode-763-fedora-fixes-everything/ https://hackaday.com/2023/12/27/floss-weekly-episode-763-fed...
heywoodlh 3y ago
> I fail to see what separates Alma from CentOS Stream at this point I believe that AlmaLinux's approach is in-line with Red Hat's vision for downstream OS-es. Rocky's is not. I think a potential benefit to aligning with Red Hat's approach is that both AlmaLinux and Red Hat will be contributing fixes, improvements, etc. to CentOS Stream -- and any other OS-es that base off of CentOS Stream. And, nothing is preventing AlmaLinux from snapshotting their own stable releases -- which allows the AlmaLinux team to test and release stable releases to their users. > the Hostility of IBM and Redhat here has lead me to transition 100% of the CentOS Server I managed to Ubuntu I completely agree with this perspective. This is why Rocky's decisions really baffle me: why use an upstream OS like RHEL if you absolutely do not align with its objectives? I feel like it would have made much more sense for Rocky to make Fedora their upstream instead of implementing workarounds to copy RHEL. > 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 I also do not use any Fedora based distribution (typically just running NixOS or Ubuntu), however, I find that I do care about these shifts because Red Hat has tremendous impact on the trajectory of most Linux distributions. And the downstream OS-es' responses have been interesting to observe to me. :)
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > I believe that AlmaLinux's approach is in-line with Red Hat's vision for downstream OS-es. Rocky's is not. What is in-line with users' vision?
  - heywoodlh 3y ago
    At this point, I'm not sure why end users who care about Red Hat stability don't just use RHEL directly. Red Hat has multiple ways to take advantage of RHEL that involve no cost (that weren't available when the original CentOS project was conceived): - Free developer licenses[0] (great if you're a home-labber, IIRC you can get up to 16, I think?) - Red Hat UBI images[1] I feel like most users of AlmaLinux won't see a huge difference between just using AlmaLinux's release cycle vs RHEL -- especially since AlmaLinux will be ABI compatible with RHEL. I.E. apps that work for RHEL should work for AlmaLinux. So, back to your original question, I don't know what end-users want more of other than as was said by mrweasel in a different comment: "that's not what some people want, they specifically want RHEL, but for free". [0] https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/10/how-to-activate-your-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-subscription https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/10/how-to-activat... [1] https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/ubi https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/ubi
mrweasel 3y ago
> if you are running ERP Systems, LOB Apps, or other critical functions that measure their code life in decades That's really what confuses me about the people who use CentOS or Rocky, they want or need the stability of RHEL, so that they can run these crucial applications, that mostly aren't cheap, yet they refuse to pay for the development of the operating system they run it them? I really don't see the point in any of these clones, other than as an educational tool. I see the point in RHEL and while expensive, that's the price of developing this platform. You can buy SuSE, Ubuntu Pro or Oracle Linux, if you feel that RedHat is to expensive (perhaps not Oracle), but that's not what some people want, they specifically want RHEL, but for free.
- mjw1007 3y ago
  The theory that Red Hat users are supposed to be paying for development of the system is a recent one. What Red Hat used to say is that the software is free and their users are paying for support. That made a great deal of sense, as of course Red Hat themselves were shipping a great deal of software written by other people without paying for its development. There's nothing confusing about people declining to go along with this change.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    > There's nothing confusing about people declining to go along with this change. No, but why stay on a platform from a vendor that has a business model you find hostile? I can see the need for a transition period, but I'd start looking for another vendor that has value and pricing that aligns more with my ideals. People seem hellbent on staying on a RHEL-like platform. Also, CentOS isn't/wasn't exactly new, the current pricing model from Redhat isn't nearly as old as CentOS.
    - orthoxerox 3y ago
      > People seem hellbent on staying on a RHEL-like platform. Not really, Ubuntu Server has surged in popularity.
- orthoxerox 3y ago
jacooper 3y ago
To be fair, rocky isn't on its own here. https://openela.org https://openela.org (CIQ=Rocky)
dissident_coder 3y ago
> I fail to see what separates Alma from CentOS Stream at this point Alma is getting their source packages from CentoOS Stream, but they are using the specific versions that are in the Redhat releases they are targetting. They aren't just rebuilding Stream sources from HEAD.

indigodaddy 3y ago

AFAIK, Alma has committed to continued full RHEL binary compatibility.

heywoodlh 3y ago
Incorrect, according to their FAQ[0] and the original article I linked[1]: > What does ABI/binary compatible with RHEL mean? > In July of 2023, we announced (opens new window) that we were shifting our goal from being a downstream rebuild of RHEL to maintaining ABI compatibility with RHEL. For the AlmaLinux team that means that everything from software applications to kernel modules that work on RHEL will work on AlmaLinux, and if they don't we would consider that a bug. TL;DR: they are using CentOS Stream as their upstream. EDIT: Sorry, you're correct -- I was thinking you meant their original goal of "bug-for-bug" compatibility with RHEL. [0] https://wiki.almalinux.org/FAQ.html#what-does-abi-binary-compatible-with-rhel-mean https://wiki.almalinux.org/FAQ.html#what-does-abi-binary-com... [1] https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/
throw0101d 3y ago
> For a typical user, this will mean very little change in your use of AlmaLinux. Red Hat-compatible applications will still be able to run on AlmaLinux OS, and your installs of AlmaLinux will continue to receive timely security updates. The most remarkable potential impact of the change is that we will no longer be held to the line of “bug-for-bug compatibility” with Red Hat, and that means that we can now accept bug fixes outside of Red Hat’s release cycle. While that means some AlmaLinux OS users may encounter bugs that are not in Red Hat, we may also accept patches for bugs that have not yet been accepted upstream, or shipped downstream. * https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/

bennyvasquez 3y ago

Our primary difference: a 10-year lifecycle, with a focus on stability. I'd say that your use case for CentOS might have been vendor compliance, but our user base doesn't agree that's the only use case. I'd recommend listening to this podcast with Neal Gompa about Red Hat vs IBM at this point: https://hackaday.com/2023/12/27/floss-weekly-episode-763-fedora-fixes-everything/ https://hackaday.com/2023/12/27/floss-weekly-episode-763-fed...

heywoodlh 3y ago

> I fail to see what separates Alma from CentOS Stream at this point I believe that AlmaLinux's approach is in-line with Red Hat's vision for downstream OS-es. Rocky's is not. I think a potential benefit to aligning with Red Hat's approach is that both AlmaLinux and Red Hat will be contributing fixes, improvements, etc. to CentOS Stream -- and any other OS-es that base off of CentOS Stream. And, nothing is preventing AlmaLinux from snapshotting their own stable releases -- which allows the AlmaLinux team to test and release stable releases to their users. > the Hostility of IBM and Redhat here has lead me to transition 100% of the CentOS Server I managed to Ubuntu I completely agree with this perspective. This is why Rocky's decisions really baffle me: why use an upstream OS like RHEL if you absolutely do not align with its objectives? I feel like it would have made much more sense for Rocky to make Fedora their upstream instead of implementing workarounds to copy RHEL. > 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 I also do not use any Fedora based distribution (typically just running NixOS or Ubuntu), however, I find that I do care about these shifts because Red Hat has tremendous impact on the trajectory of most Linux distributions. And the downstream OS-es' responses have been interesting to observe to me. :)

throw0101d 3y ago
> I believe that AlmaLinux's approach is in-line with Red Hat's vision for downstream OS-es. Rocky's is not. What is in-line with users' vision?
- heywoodlh 3y ago
  At this point, I'm not sure why end users who care about Red Hat stability don't just use RHEL directly. Red Hat has multiple ways to take advantage of RHEL that involve no cost (that weren't available when the original CentOS project was conceived): - Free developer licenses[0] (great if you're a home-labber, IIRC you can get up to 16, I think?) - Red Hat UBI images[1] I feel like most users of AlmaLinux won't see a huge difference between just using AlmaLinux's release cycle vs RHEL -- especially since AlmaLinux will be ABI compatible with RHEL. I.E. apps that work for RHEL should work for AlmaLinux. So, back to your original question, I don't know what end-users want more of other than as was said by mrweasel in a different comment: "that's not what some people want, they specifically want RHEL, but for free". [0] https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/10/how-to-activate-your-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-subscription https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/10/how-to-activat... [1] https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/ubi https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/ubi

mrweasel 3y ago

> if you are running ERP Systems, LOB Apps, or other critical functions that measure their code life in decades That's really what confuses me about the people who use CentOS or Rocky, they want or need the stability of RHEL, so that they can run these crucial applications, that mostly aren't cheap, yet they refuse to pay for the development of the operating system they run it them? I really don't see the point in any of these clones, other than as an educational tool. I see the point in RHEL and while expensive, that's the price of developing this platform. You can buy SuSE, Ubuntu Pro or Oracle Linux, if you feel that RedHat is to expensive (perhaps not Oracle), but that's not what some people want, they specifically want RHEL, but for free.

mjw1007 3y ago
The theory that Red Hat users are supposed to be paying for development of the system is a recent one. What Red Hat used to say is that the software is free and their users are paying for support. That made a great deal of sense, as of course Red Hat themselves were shipping a great deal of software written by other people without paying for its development. There's nothing confusing about people declining to go along with this change.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  > There's nothing confusing about people declining to go along with this change. No, but why stay on a platform from a vendor that has a business model you find hostile? I can see the need for a transition period, but I'd start looking for another vendor that has value and pricing that aligns more with my ideals. People seem hellbent on staying on a RHEL-like platform. Also, CentOS isn't/wasn't exactly new, the current pricing model from Redhat isn't nearly as old as CentOS.
  - orthoxerox 3y ago
    > People seem hellbent on staying on a RHEL-like platform. Not really, Ubuntu Server has surged in popularity.
orthoxerox 3y ago

jacooper 3y ago

To be fair, rocky isn't on its own here. https://openela.org https://openela.org (CIQ=Rocky)

dissident_coder 3y ago

> I fail to see what separates Alma from CentOS Stream at this point Alma is getting their source packages from CentoOS Stream, but they are using the specific versions that are in the Redhat releases they are targetting. They aren't just rebuilding Stream sources from HEAD.