Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by ThiagoCMC View Post
    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.

    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?
    I'm really hoping that Valve is paying attention enough to realize that a lot of us would fucking love Arch Linux Enterprise. ALE. The beta could be Pale ALE. Clone RHEL or SUSE and swap out DNF for Pacman.

    Comment


    • #52
      I don't like those leech distros who openly say that they don't have any intention to contribute something.

      I am still on CentOs 7 and watching how this develops.
      Currently, Ubuntu LTS seems like the only option.
      I first wanted openSuse Leap, but those yearly "minor" releases turned out to not be "minor" at all.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by hf_139 View Post
        I don't like those leech distros who openly say that they don't have any intention to contribute something.

        I am still on CentOs 7 and watching how this develops.
        Currently, Ubuntu LTS seems like the only option.
        I first wanted openSuse Leap, but those yearly "minor" releases turned out to not be "minor" at all.
        Precisely another point why I absolutely love Debian or Ubuntu, the minor upgrades are really minor, no surprises in `apt upgrade` process, at all.

        For example, RedHat 9.1 have `libvirt-8.5.0`, while RedHat 9.2 now has `libvirt-9.0.0`. What's wrong with them? This is gross. This alone is the reason why people are afraid of automatically running `dnf upgrade`, because it breaks shit.

        This never ever happens in Debian.

        Not to mention that there's no support for upgrading CentOS 6 to 7, 7 to 8... And this is being nicely done for +20 years in Debian, which is one command on Ubuntu (`do-release-upgrade`, and you upgraded 20.04 to 22.04).

        So, yeah, Red Hat-based distros are utter crap.

        I do love the work that RedHat does in the upstream projects (QEMU, Libvirt, VirtIO drivers, all awesome stuff)! But their distribution is garbage. So, Debian takes what RedHat does, packages, and distributes those things in the best way possible. And then Ubuntu goes there and polishes Debian even more!
        Last edited by ThiagoCMC; 14 July 2023, 09:20 AM.

        Comment


        • #54
          It seems that phoronix message moderation got it’s playbook from Chinese censorship. Do you mind explaining Why my post wasnt approved ? No curse words,no hate speech .

          Double standard in all its glory. Its okay to bad mouth others ,but not the american dictatorship ? If you have any decency,Mr moderator , explain your actions .

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by ThiagoCMC View Post

            For example, RedHat 9.1 have `libvirt-8.5.0`, while RedHat 9.2 now has `libvirt-9.0.0`. What's wrong with them? This is gross. This alone is the reason why people are afraid of automatically running `dnf upgrade`, because it breaks shit.
            You are using it wrong, you can tell DNF to stick to a minor release and if you your application is fragile when it comes to dependencies that's what you are supposed to do. For dev work you would usually decide on a specific version "X.Y", then develop, test and deploy against that exact same version. In some cases you even use the very exact version of every single package for developing and deploying on identical systems. This is also why Stream is utterly useless.

            You don't get the 10 years of support with minor releases though, some specific minor releases get two years and you can pay for four.

            Anyways, I like Debian quite a lot, but I can't suggest corporate to use something without predictable releases and support. That's the great thing about Ubuntu, they take a good and stable base and just add predictable releases and support. I really do hate pretty much everything they try to make in-house though, they should stick to predictable releases and support, maybe extend the lifecycle of their LTS releases to 10 years like RHEL.

            When it comes to SLE, I don't understand if OpenSUSE is supposed to be compatible with it and what is going to happen to it when ALP finally materializes.

            Comment


            • #56
              This thread is like 80% trolls

              Comment


              • #57
                I just don't understand the point of Red Hat clones. I thought the whole point of using Red Hat, was so you could get the enterprise-level support and service. Weren't you free to use Red Hat without a subscription anyways? You just would not get any support from Red Hat.

                ...then all of these 1:1 clones popped up that offered the Red Hat experience ...without the Red Hat support. So what was the point?

                Comment


                • #58
                  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.
                  Indeed. openSUSE Leap has been about a SLES for everyone. And, just saying, apart from IPO'ing in the USA, SUSE has been way more focused on the needs of the enterprise than Red Hat has been historically (SUSE was enterprise for much longer, and better, RHEL wasn't even close until RHEL 5, before that, it was total crap). And they bring a lot of technology to the table that others do not.

                  With that said, I do miss the public SUSE Studio... and if you ever saw/used that, you would have left Red Hat in the dirt a long time ago. But SUSE did do away with it, but allows you to "build your own" version of it. Old video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRI2_ePlu1Q

                  In other words, IMHO, if you're a paying IBM/Red Hat customer, you would have gotten a lot more from team SUSE. Back when SUSE subscriptions were free for anyone using VMware, it was a great choice. I know that deal no longer exists, but it certainly made SUSE (commercial) a value leader. I am talking "commercial" side. That is, those who pay for Linux support.

                  So, what about "the source"? Well, SUSE doesn't stick their changes into a public git repo, but they do have a "mechanism" to get at their sources. And this is why there hasn't historically been a ton of clones out there. But now that openSUSE Leap is essentially SLES, it's probably a moot point. As you said, it's very original purpose CentOS like.

                  Red Hat's pull back of direct access to source without an active support ($$$$) subscription in place, while some would argue is "ok" for them to do, it does fly in the face of the way FOSS is supposed to work. I know people call out CentOS (pre clobbering by Red Hat/IBM), AlmaLinux, Rocky and Oracle EL as being "shills" for "stealing" from Red Hat, but in all fairness, that's FOSS. Sure, there's the sharing, contributing side... but honestly, do the vast majority of user of Linux contribute back? No.

                  When I pointed out that because at any given time you could have "something" from Red Hat in your possession without an active support subscription, IBM has promised (answered me directly) that "somehow" they will get you access to the sources. IMHO, IBM is counting on "nobody" asking. Because it's one thing to have a public git repo, and another to serve specific versioned sources to the public upon request (it could be orders of magnitude more effort).

                  Remember RMS's "stories". I have a device, it's a good device, but no longer "supported" by closed drivers, so I can't use the device, even though if I had access to software, I could still use it. IBM's decision is contrary to those types of ideas.

                  But honestly, as a former IBMer, if you knew IBM (truly), you could see the "why" about all of this. They are a patent seeking/holding, closed IP corporate culture that regularly exploits FOSS for strictly their own benefit. As I used to say, "At IBM, we don't do win-win, and we never lose."

                  There's a ton of people (apparently here) who absolutely love Red Hat, but anyone who can do a web search, can see pretty clearly what is happening over time. The good ole Red Hat died a long time ago. And just to be honest, that's fine to IBM.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Barley9432 View Post
                    So exactly what CentOS Stream is doing, but instead Stream actually contributes to upstream instead of being leeches feeding of RedHat and giving nothing in return.

                    Hopefully these leech rebuilds like Alma, Rocky, Oracle all shutdown. They have been taking advantage of the good will of open source for far too long.
                    do they not file found bugs upstream? do they differ from normal distros? can you elaborate

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Knghtbrd View Post

                      I think you don't understand that a statement of compatibility does not violate trademark law. Much to IBM's chagrin back in the 1980s when they tried to bury Compaq any way they could. Too bad, we won't see people saying their stuff is "compatible with the douchiest corporate Linux distribution."

                      IBM Red Hat is now profanity as far as I'm concerned. Any client considering it, I will simply tell them: They promise ten years of support and then kill it a year later. You'd be better off with SUSE if you need enterprise-level support. If you don't, Debian—Debian's support model is not contingent on a profit motive, and it never will be.
                      And i think you and the people that upvoted your response do not know how to use Google:





                      As a general rule of thumb, you can use a company's name for the purposes of commentary, but you may not use it in connection with a competing good or service.

                      In this case, the RHEL clones are explicitly offering a competing good or service and as Apple has proven many times over the years, they will not be able to use Red Hat's trademarks in that fashion.

                      *For those that don't know, Apple killed off the Mac clones years ago using a similar strategy and remember Pear OS? That went the way of the Do Do years ago, much like Asahi will.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X