Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Opensource and Linux is a great ecosystem. First of all there is choice here, so Redhat is not doing good for themselves by closing access to their distro for newcomers.
    They have strong competition as well - Ubuntu and Suse. A lot of enterprises are already using Redhat and Ubuntu and with hostile approach of Redhat SMEs will be against using rhel as unfortunately they will don't know it as they will not use it at home so the obvious choice will be Ubuntu.

    What is more there was great status quo of Centos where everyone knew it is poor man Redhat which is great for non prod and home environments. Now this is gone so... Why would anyone use closed platform - rhel may go same way as Solaris did.

    Oracle is in not bad position either, as there is no real Rhel upgrade path and everyone knows that you have to do clean install they can release something different in OL10.

    What is sad to me is that Redhat showed that they can't be trusted anymore. And trust is important in this ecosystem - at least this is my view.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by emblemparade View Post

      I keep seeing people pit Red Hat against Canonical, but:

      Red Hat = 13K employees, $16B revenue
      Canonical = 1K, $175M revenue

      Canonical has strong mindshare among professional developers and home users. That's great. But for Canonical to grab a significant chunk of those enterprise contracts is ... well, a lot of things would need to happen in the industry.

      You need to understand what "enterprise" means. These are multi-million-dollar contracts for licenses and support of production-ready systems that lose millions of dollars on minutes of downtime and security breaches. Canonical is simply not in that playing field. If Red Hat falls for whatever reason, customers would probably go to Oracle, Microsoft, and perhaps Google would step up. Canonical is not the kind of company that can step up for the kind of support that "enterprises" need. At least not right now.

      This is not a dig at Canonical! Ubuntu is a great operating system with a superb user experience and intriguing (sometimes controversial) innovation. It moved the whole GNU/Linux ecosystem forward and set new standards for UX in this often opaque world. But there's a reason why companies are hungry for a bit-by-bit clone of RHEL instead of going with Ubuntu.

      And Debian, which has only community support (well, a few companies offer some basic support), is entirely a non-starter for the enterprise market. Again, at this moment.
      Strange that with all that mindshare they still didn't surpass SUSE.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

        Most reports claim that OpenKylin built its own repositories and are not using Canonical's.

        But nobody have bothered to check whether the packages in OPenKylin's repositories are newer or older than Canonical's.

        I love UKUI and OpenKylin is definitely promising but will not bother to use it until there is confirmation UKUI can run a full Wayland desktop session and that there is at least GTK 4.5 and Qt6.4 in the base repos.

        Also, not having snap and flatpak is a huge plus in my book.
        Fuck me if I ever touch "made"-in China Linux (even if only partly made).
        Imagine going to a customer, a business, anybody (everywhere but in China of course), who is only amateur-level aware of what Chinese do to software -- and yes I've seen those lamenting: but! it's the government and not all the people. Have you seen recent, fresh out Chinese students manifest that non-government China?... so spare me -- and telling them that yes!... you recommend​ Chinese OS/software to run their bank or school.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by CTown View Post
          I completely understand the need for a free version of RHEL. It has been the standard over a long time.

          Still, is there a reason why Suse's offering can't fill the void for most people? Isn't OpenSuse the Suse version of CentOS? What does SLES/OpenSuse lack so a community can build around it instead of RHEL/Rocky or Alma.
          Yes OpenSUSE Leap is based on the sources of SUSE Enterprise Linux Server/Desktop (SLES/SLED).

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by gavron View Post

            You probably want to look up "leeches" and understand how that works before posting again, troll.
            do tell, please, enlighten us all.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by lejeczek View Post

              Fuck me if I ever touch "made"-in China Linux (even if only partly made).
              ….. so spare me -- and telling them that yes!... you recommend​ Chinese OS/software to run their bank or school.
              What makes you think US govt infested Linux is better than Chinese infested Linux ? All of them,no matter the color or the manifest,are against regular people,decent folk paying the govt half of their income (at least here) .

              Ofc I have no solid proof (how Could I?) ,but my honest hunch is that Linux is already backdoored, by those 3 letter agencies ,or weakened in such a manner that it could easily get accesed remotely , with all the decently secured nature it has.

              Comment


              • #47
                I find it a little bit sad that newbies feel that people shouldn't be able to repackage Red Hat's work without giving a second thought to the fact that Red Hat repackages *everyone's* work. That is literally what the RHEL product is. A distribution of open-source (OUR!) work. I find this train of thought a little insulting to the wider open-source community who has designed and developed the majority of your software for them. Not companies like Red Hat.

                If *everyone* kept their work private and didn't share, this entire community (the entire computing platform) wouldn't exist. Very disappointed in RH and disappointed in the clear lack of knowledge of so many new users. Please go back to Microsoft and Apple, they do not think in the correct direction to be a benefit to open-source.
                Last edited by kpedersen; 14 July 2023, 07:22 AM.

                Comment


                • #48
                  and with a single decision, the installed userbase of RHEL shrinks faster than windows 8 when windows 8.1 was released.

                  wouldn't want to be a RHEL engineer for the foreseeable future, it is going to be a lonely job with a megaton of extra work.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    So, the whole point for AlmaLinux to exist in the first place is now gone (they should close doors instead), and Rocky is next, and who knows what will happen with Oracle Linux past 9.2.

                    The SUSE fork seems unnecessary, adding more noise to this creepy situation. I have much better ideas for that 10M USD, that could change the world. SUSE seems to be opportunistic and just trying to capitalize on the chaos and created vacuums

                    Let's be real, there is only one sane option left in this world, which is Debian. And for some sort of insurance against `systemd` craziness, which is led by Micro$oft now, there is Devuan.​

                    I prefer Ubuntu myself, because of HWE, Ubuntu Cloud Archive, LXD, SNAPs, easy NVIDIA drivers installation, and good AMDGPU support. However, how to assure that Canonical isn't going to become the next Red Hat?
                    Last edited by ThiagoCMC; 14 July 2023, 08:16 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
                      I find it a little bit sad that newbies feel that people shouldn't be able to repackage Red Hat's work without giving a second thought to the fact that Red Hat repackages *everyone's* work. That is literally what the RHEL product is. A distribution of open-source (OUR!) work. I find this train of thought a little insulting to the wider open-source community who has designed and developed the majority of your software for them. Not companies like Red Hat.

                      If *everyone* kept their work private and didn't share, this entire community (the entire computing platform) wouldn't exist. Very disappointed in RH and disappointed in the clear lack of knowledge of so many new users. Please go back to Microsoft and Apple, they do not think in the correct direction to be a benefit to open-source.
                      The GPL explicitly states that you don't have to share the stuff you use to repackage and build everything and that's specifically what RHEL is trying to keep people from accessing. If that wasn't the case then there'd be a silly instance of source+binary dependency hell where you'd need the source of the code you're after, the binaries of what RHEL used to compile it, the sources of those binaries, the binaries of what RHEL used to compile those binaries, the sources to those binaries, and so on and so forth until we finally get back to WTF ever Linus and Stallman used way back when. That silly instance would happen for EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF GPL SOFTWARE. That's why there's a "don't have to share the build system" clause and that clause is specifically what RHEL gets to exploit in order to make everyone else's product into their product.

                      To expand that further, what if the build system includes closed source text editors or the developer uses AMD AOCC or Intel ICC, compilers they can't distribute, but just wants to upload their open source code in a generic manner that any compiler could use? Would they be not allowed to release as GPL compatible code because they use non-free compilers? Because non-free programs were used? Does the OS itself count as being part of the build system? You'd be hard pressed to run GCC without Linux, Windows, macOS, etc and all the programs that make up a running operating system.

                      The build system clause cuts both ways. It allows the developer to unshackle their code from their build environment just as much as it allows RHEL to unshackle their build environment from the code they're using.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X