Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rocky Linux To Support Upstream Stable Kernels

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

  • stack
    replied
    Additionally, it appears that the upstream kernel endeavor on Rocky Linux may be gated to their commercial customers as opposed to making all the assets freely available and just gating their commercial support.
    Originally posted by mirmirmir View Post
    Source code for paying costumer only? This is pretty much rhel version of rhel clone.
    Just heard direct from a CIQ employee:

    Sources are the same as upstream, if we need to change/fix things, we push it up to mainline/stable.


    [edit: and once again for clarity - this is CIQ's announcement not Rocky's. ]

    Leave a comment:


  • stack
    replied
    Greetings!
    Testing Team lead for Rocky here. If anyone has specific questions please feel free to ping me.

    Originally posted by emansom View Post
    This article is misleading. Rocky Linux already ships upstream stable kernels via their Kernel SIG. CIQ offers the same with enterprise support added atop.

    The title and paragraphs should be rewritten to reflect that.
    This is pretty much what I came here to say. This news is a CIQ thing. Not a Rocky Linux thing. Our Linux SIG offers newer kernels for a variety of reasons and has dones so for a while now. Everything we do is open source and in the public (with the exception of passwords/keys/ect).


    Originally posted by Developer12 View Post
    Far as I can tell, CIQ isn't Rocky. They donate to rocky and they build their product on rocky, but they're a distinct (commercial) organization.

    So the sequence of events is more like "rocky provides a free but support-less RHEL clone" and then "some other company takes rocky, adds newer kernels, and starts charging for it." It's not rocky's fault if some other company uses rocky linux to build a commercial product, even if that company decided to donate some money back.


    Correct. There are a number of companies that we know of that build on top of Rocky whatever it is they do. Some times they contribute back via money or time. Yes, there are people who work at CIQ and also work on Rocky. But to my knowledge as of right now - no one is paid to be full time Rocky via CIQ or any other company. There have been talks of several companies donating a full time employee, but this is our hobby project as community. (My company allows me a couple hours a week to work on Rocky, but the majority of the time I spend is my own time; this is true for many contributors from many other organizations.)

    We are thankful for the support CIQ provides, but they are free to make decisions for what they want to do on top of Rocky just as any other company is. Their decisions don't reflect what Rocky does. Yes, there are CIQ people in Rocky leadership - but we (Rocky leadership) work very hard to keep the promise that Rocky Linux will never be controlled, purchased, or otherwise influenced by a single entity or organization.​ Rocky Linux is a community EL distro. Leadership is elected by Rocky members. One vote per member. Rocky members are active community members. No company can buy votes; board seats are never sold - seats are filled by merit. Quorum can not be established if more then 1/3 of the voters have ties to the same company.

    We made a few promises to the community to remain open, to be a 1:1 rebuild for as long as we are able, and to be an community EL distro outside of any other entity control - and we are doing our best to keep those promises. And should anyone in the community not agree with how we are running things, join in and participate to become an active member. Voting is coming up to change board seats and leadership positions... Only the Rocky community gets a say in how Rocky moves forward.

    Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • miquels
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    Red Hat is one of the original Linux distributions, I think only Slackware is older. The spent 30+ years contributing significant amounts of code and money to various open source projects, including the Linux kernel and in fact they are a founding member and platinum supporter of the Linux Foundation.
    First public Debian version: 0.91 (BETA), Januari 1994
    First public Redhat version: 0.90 (BETA), October 1994

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

    Rocky is stealing from Red Hat, not the software but the business Red Hat built.

    That's stealing, pure and simple.
    Seems Orwell missed a trick

    knowledge is ignorance
    freedom is slavery
    war is peace
    competition is theft

    Leave a comment:


  • emansom
    replied
    This article is misleading. Rocky Linux already ships upstream stable kernels via their Kernel SIG. CIQ offers the same with enterprise support added atop.

    The title and paragraphs should be rewritten to reflect that.

    Leave a comment:


  • spicfoo
    replied
    Originally posted by Developer12 View Post
    [B]

    Far as I can tell, CIQ isn't Rocky. They donate to rocky and they build their product on rocky, but they're a distinct (commercial) organization.
    They are legally separate but have a very incestuous relationship. CIQ is not merely donating to an independent distribution. They share funds and personnel. Gregory Kurtzer for example is the chair of Rocky Linux foundation and he is also the CEO of CIQ.

    Leave a comment:


  • Developer12
    replied
    All these long comments and yet everyone is just building on michael's screwup in the article.

    Far as I can tell, CIQ isn't Rocky. They donate to rocky and they build their product on rocky, but they're a distinct (commercial) organization.

    So the sequence of events is more like "rocky provides a free but support-less RHEL clone" and then "some other company takes rocky, adds newer kernels, and starts charging for it." It's not rocky's fault if some other company uses rocky linux to build a commercial product, even if that company decided to donate some money back.

    Leave a comment:


  • EphemeralEft
    replied
    Originally posted by DumbFsck View Post

    Case and point, the code never stopped being available. Everything that goes into RHEL is still being first pushed to CentOS Stream (except for whatever proprietary code they can't due to contracts, but this was true of CentOS as well).

    [...]

    This is of course not to mention that the whole narrative of RH breaking the GPL was quite probably manufacturedand full of disinformation. They are not breaking the GPL, their code is available, their build process is open, the only thing they stopped doing was extra work they did ON TOP of what they have to do, by removing whatever vendor specific branding and whatnot and flagging/building the whole distro twice instead of only once.
    I don't want to argue with everything you said, but I don't think that's an accurate summary.

    Most people (including the FSF) agreed that RedHat isn't legally violating the GPL, but that they're violating the spirit of the GPL; the idea that GPLed software belongs to everyone. Because of how the GPL defines derivative works it technically doesn't include build scripts and metadata, but those scripts and metadata would be useless without the GPLed software.

    Leave a comment:


  • dragon321
    replied
    Originally posted by mirmirmir View Post

    And both rocky and alma fail on being rhel clone, and we are celebrating it?
    Alma Linux still keeps software compatibility with RHEL which is the most important reason why people use RHEL clones. They don't need "bug to bug compatibility" with RHEL and it's actually a good thing that they dropped it. If you want to have RHEL just use RHEL.

    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    This misunderstands the sequence of events. Rocky (backed by CIQ) tried to under Red Hat by doing none of the development and poaching customers Oracle style. Red Hat reacted by not going out of their way to publish all the tags in the public source repos. Now CIQ is showing their hands more after waging a misinformation PR campaign. It would be silly to believe that CIQ was developing a clone for anything other than business reasons.
    Quite ironic. In "Rocky Linux vs Alma Linux" discussions a lot of people discouraged others from using Alma Linux as "it was started by a company so there is risk that they will close it just like Red Hat closed CentOS" and recommended Rocky Linux because "it was started by CentOS founder and it's not affiliated with any company". That was pretty interesting point as Alma Linux is owned by non profit foundation, only supported financially by CloudLinux Inc. and Rocky Linux Foundation is for profit.​​
    Last edited by dragon321; 18 April 2024, 04:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DumbFsck
    replied
    Originally posted by logical View Post

    I'd hate for you to be disappointed, so I'll be the first. LOL

    Please explain how following the license is stealing for Rocky, but not for Red Hat? The overwhelming vast majority of RHEL is created from software not created, or solely developed by Red Hat. They exist because those licenses allowed them to use the software. I should know because I've used Red Hat's software from the very beginning. I used to purchase their boxed sets just to support their efforts.

    So, please spare us the nasty Rocky diatribe.

    Sophisticles answer to this comment is incorrect.

    The correct response is that Rocky is not stealing the code, but instead stealing the services RH applies to the code before selling support.

    I don't remember who was the red hatter that put it thusly: rocky doesn't care about the code, they care about the promises RH make about the code.


    Case and point, the code never stopped being available. Everything that goes into RHEL is still being first pushed to CentOS Stream (except for whatever proprietary code they can't due to contracts, but this was true of CentOS as well).

    So the scummy part of what Rocky is doing is not comparable to what RH does with open-source code. RH takes it in-house parks the version and promises they will make sure it works for 10 years or whatever. What Rocky does is take that and tell their clients "this code will work for the next 10", so they are marketing the promise and commitment from RH, without sharing any of the burden. Their marketing differential has been "we promise we won't differentiate", how can this be fair?

    This is of course not to mention that the whole narrative of RH breaking the GPL was quite probably manufacturedand full of disinformation. They are not breaking the GPL, their code is available, their build process is open, the only thing they stopped doing was extra work they did ON TOP of what they have to do, by removing whatever vendor specific branding and whatnot and flagging/building the whole distro twice instead of only once.


    And of course that is all without mentioning how Rocky/CIQ purchased advertising/sponsored Google results for when people googled for "RHEL" and "red hat support" and stuff like that. Sure, it all might be legal, but pretending it isn't scummy is far fetched.


    Leave a comment:

Working...
X