[HN Gopher] Rocky Linux 9.0
___________________________________________________________________
Rocky Linux 9.0
Author : TangerineDream
Score : 107 points
Date : 2022-07-14 16:14 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (rockylinux.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (rockylinux.org)
| chomp wrote:
| I'm super excited about this because it's being done in tandem
| with the release of Peridot, Rocky's internal tooling to build
| and maintain distro forks.
|
| https://github.com/rocky-linux/peridot
| freedomben wrote:
| Oh neat, thank you I didn't realize they had released that.
| That's really a great value for the community! It increases my
| opinion of Rocky
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Is anyone aware of a decent reference comparing say Alma and
| Rocky?
|
| I imagine the 'product' is essentially the same, but policies or
| procedures may differ - and these can be significant! It's what
| draws me to the Fedora project so much.
|
| Asking as someone who wasn't really that bothered by CentOS
| Stream. I've seen it as basically rolling point releases, which
| wouldn't be a problem for me personally
| freedomben wrote:
| _Disclaimer: Former Red Hat employee_
|
| My info might be slightly outdated cause last I looked into it
| was a few months ago, but I would guess it's not terribly
| different. Yes both are essentially the same product. Main
| differences from user perspective are reliability of package
| servers and speed of updates, plus community experience if you
| get involved there (friendly tip: I suggest you stay the hell
| away from the cess pool that is Reddit. That whole site
| probably needs to die in a fire)
|
| *Alma Linux:*
|
| - Works closer with upstream (actually sends patches and
| participates with dev on CentOS)
|
| - Backed by a for-profit company (which I consider a good thing
| for longevity and reliability, but of course there's a risk of
| profit and community incentives misalignment)
|
| - Fastest on updates when upstream releases
|
| - Friendly and appreciative (generally speaking) toward Red Hat
| (without which none of their business would be possible)
|
| *Rocky Linux*
|
| - "Community" owned, but backed by some corporate money
|
| - Very volunteer-run. Have some paid employees working on but
| many volunteers
|
| - Hostile (and sometimes hateful) toward Red Hat
|
| I mostly use CentOS Stream though and that has been rock solid.
| I use Alma on my router and on a prod database server that will
| be nearly impossible to rebuild that I migrated to Alma from
| Cent, but CentOS feels better to me now than it did before
| changing to Stream.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| What are you going to do when support for CentOS Stream 8
| ends in 2024? Alma Linux 8 is supported until 2029 at least -
| for me it's a no brainer to use Alma for something like a
| database server.
| dralley wrote:
| The same thing all the Debian and Ubuntu LTS and OpenSUSE
| Leap users would do, upgrade to a newer release.
|
| 10 years of unpaid support has always been an anomaly that
| no other LTS distro provided.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE Leap all support in-place
| upgrades between major versions. RedHat/CentOS do not.
| gravitate wrote:
| Why should I use this over, say, Ubuntu or Linux Mint? What's the
| unique selling point? And what's the target audience besides
| Linux enthusiasts who still distrohop?
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| 10 years of support for $0. If you need to set up a box and
| forget that it exists (unless hardware breaks), this is what
| you use.
| _micheee wrote:
| In case you don't intend distrohopping you use this for being
| "an open-source enterprise operating system designed to be 100%
| bug-for-bug compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux(r)."
|
| So its actually for people trying to replace CentOS which
| RedHat decided to drop :)
| ranger207 wrote:
| It's a server distro (unlike Mint) in the Red Hat family
| (unlike Ubuntu). As a server-oriented distribution it has
| options for installing with a bare minimum of packages,
| including no GUI, and typically has longer support cycles. As a
| Red Hat derivative, it generally features more recent versions
| of core Linux userland things like systemd, since Red Hat
| employs a lot of the developers of those features. In
| comparison to Ubuntu it also has far less snap packages, which
| some people like because snaps have various problems in their
| current implementation.
|
| The target audience is people who used to use Centos, before
| Red Hat ended Centos 8 years early and moved it to a rolling
| release schedule. Its primary competitors in the server-focused
| Red Hat derivatives are Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself, which
| is paid; Centos Stream, which is rolling release; or Alma
| Linux, which is, currently, basically the same distro due to
| how recent the Centos debacle was, but could diverge in the
| future.
| [deleted]
| orthoxerox wrote:
| It's off-brand RHEL. There's some server software that isn't
| compatible with any other distro. So if you wanted to run it,
| you either had to pay for a RHEL license, or run it on CentOS,
| which was the original official off-brand version of RHEL.
|
| Then CentOS was killed by IBM/RedHat and reborn as the beta
| distro for the next RHEL release. Rocky Linux and Alma Linux
| were created to fill this niche. For example, you can run your
| production server on RHEL, but run your test and dev machines
| on Rocky while being reasonably sure that there won't be any
| compatibility issues.
| rnd0 wrote:
| I think the target audience is people who want RHEL but don't
| want to pay for it -same as almalinux?
| NoahKAndrews wrote:
| This is an equivalent to CentOS, now that there won't be any
| more CentOS major releases besides CentOS Stream.
| bubblethink wrote:
| It's a downstream rebuild of RHEL 9. The release notes page
| tragically fails to mentions that. Chalk that up to failures of
| trademark law.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Rocky Linux 8.4 GA_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27579297 - June 2021 (24
| comments)
|
| _Rocky Linux 8.4 RC1_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27568087 - June 2021 (64
| comments)
|
| _Rocky Linux releases its first release candidate_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27304012 - May 2021 (116
| comments)
|
| _Rocky Linux: A CentOS replacement by the CentOS founder_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25445725 - Dec 2020 (533
| comments)
|
| _Rocky Linux: Community enterprise OS compatible with RHEL_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358739 - Dec 2020 (16
| comments)
|
| _Original CentOS founder intends to create new fork of RHEL_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354811 - Dec 2020 (8
| comments)
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| What's the thought process behind buying commercial support for a
| free, binary-compatible RHEL clone, instead of just paying for
| Red Hat support? Is the calculation that the once-in-a-blue-moon
| call to a commercial Rocky Linux support vendor when your server
| catches fire would still be cheaper than the cost of a normal
| RHEL license?
| freedomben wrote:
| _Disclaimer: I 'm a former Red Hat employee, but only speak for
| myself. I'm also going to speak very frankly._
|
| You got it. From the customer side support from them is cheaper
| than Red Hat's (sometimes much cheaper). From the supplier
| side, they don't have to bear much (or any) of the cost of
| development (beyond infra hosting and re-branding), so they can
| beat Red Hat's price very easily. I personally find that gross
| and unethical, but that's just my opinion.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| I'd say it's a two-sided sword. There's no question RH
| employs/founds large parts of Linux development, with only
| Suse being remotely as involved (maybe historically). OTOH,
| RH has pushed "innovations" such as systemd purely in their
| own interest, fragmenting a once-strong and user-centric
| F/OSS Unix community also including the BSDs into a Linux-
| only cloud slavedom. Plus, it was IBM/RH who cancelled the
| CentOS roadmap (after having bought-out the CentOS project
| and community); they can't now expect to be treated as
| trusted bona-fide Linux steward or something.
| js4ever wrote:
| They also created quay.io and fragmented docker global
| public repo by asking sponsored FOSS project to publish
| ONLY on quay. I really dislike redhat and won't touch
| anything related with them. I really don't understand why
| companies would pay thousands per server for support. I'm
| working with Linux systems since 2 decades and never needed
| to pay a cent in licenses or support.
| freedomben wrote:
| IBM had nothing to do with the CentOS decision. It was long
| time Red Hat people who made the decision. I don't agree
| with everything about the decision, but I don't think it's
| as bad as most people say it is[1].
|
| You are definitely right that RH has pushed things in their
| own interest, but if those things don't offer value to the
| broader community, then the community won't adopt them. Red
| Hat can't force Debian or Ubuntu or Arch to adopt anything.
| They can push it through Fedora Cent and RHEL, but that's
| it. The other distros adopted systemd because it offered
| benefits/improvements over existing things like Upstart. I
| like firewalld, but that's a good example of something that
| is only on RH despite RH pushing it. If systemd was really
| such a negative, then you'd see distros like Devuan take
| off. A frequent criticism is things like, "Red Hat made
| Gnome dependent on systemd" which isn't wrong, but they
| didn't just do it because they could. There were real
| benefits there.
|
| I think the reality of life is that there will always be
| people who want things to change, and those who don't want
| the change. To succeed you have to find a balance.
|
| Also important to remember when decrying "fragmentation"
| (which I decry also btw), in a massive heterogeneous
| community like open source, you're gonna have users who
| have completely different needs and use cases, and both are
| valid. The beauty of it is the code is open and free, so
| people can serve niche use cases as well as standard.
|
| [1]: Query string gets you past the "monthly limit" paywall
| that sometimes pops up:
| https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-
| stop...
| gh02t wrote:
| While I agree with you, it _is_ fair to say RH has an
| unusual amount of leverage with respect to forcing
| things. They directly control a lot of big ticket
| projects, and have powerful leadership positions in
| others. They can coordinate major changes across the
| board and the momentum they can throw behind some
| decisions can certainly exert a LOT of pressure. This isn
| 't necessarily a bad thing though - as you note it can be
| good to have a leader, but it's also something that can
| be detrimental too.
| bombcar wrote:
| Unethical would be if the companies selling the support then
| turn around and use their (one) Red Hat license whenever
| there's a real difficult problem.
|
| But the vast majority of "support" for Linux isn't engineer-
| level, it's likely config and setup. Which is where both Red
| Hat and others try to make their money.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| and RH doesn't have to bear much of the cost of the
| development of Linux, GNU, and many other products. This is
| the spirit of OS.. If you think that's unethical, you should
| find another employer ;)
|
| edit: ah.. _former_ employee.. so that part was already done
| :)
| freedomben wrote:
| > _RH doesn 't have to bear much of the cost of the
| development of Linux, GNU, and many other products._
|
| I disagree. RH is one of the top contributors to many of
| the major projects that make up the distro. Also the
| process of building/maintaining a distro is itself
| enormous. The 3rd parties have none of that expense so they
| can undercut the cost easily. In the end it hurts the whole
| ecosystem, while benefiting a select few.
| bubblethink wrote:
| >I personally find that gross and unethical.
|
| Where does the code come from ? All in the game yo.
| freedomben wrote:
| Yep, definitely not illegal, although IMHO there things
| that are legal but still unethical. And the line of
| ethicality is highly subjective. There is sort of a limiter
| in place in that if it got too bad RH could kill it pretty
| quickly by not publishing all the SRPMs. Although if they
| did that, I think the ecosystem would fall apart. I would
| bail. Part of my irritation is definitely a bad taste in my
| mouth still from Oracle.
| harha wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what sort of problems would customers
| typically run into?
|
| My very naive understanding is that it's just the OS and then
| only even a distribution (just to emphasize- very naive),
| what would they need apart from some networking and to run
| some software on top that needs so much support?
| nightfly wrote:
| Bugs.
| bityard wrote:
| I think (or at least I hope) that anyone who buys a support
| contract from a third-party company for a third-party
| distribution understands that they are not getting the same
| level of support that they would from Red Hat.
|
| There is lots of room in the enterprise sector for third-
| party support. This is, for example, what almost all
| consultants effectively are. The third-party vendor can solve
| a lot of problems that the customer may not have the
| experience to deal with and can be well worth the price paid.
| But at the end of the day if there's an actual bug all the
| way upstream in RHEL, only RHEL can (permanently) fix that.
|
| I've dealt with Red Hat in the past and one good thing about
| their support is that if you have a particularly thorny
| problem or a genuine bug, you will often eventually end up
| talking directly to someone who is either wrote the code or
| sits next to the person who did.
| carwyn wrote:
| It goes further than that. If you file a bug on Red Hat's
| bugzilla with or without a support contract, you will quite
| often get a response if you put the effort into producing a
| detailed report. No guarantee, sometimes just others with
| the same issue, but still pretty good. You will also find
| Red Hat employees on the mailing lists for the OSS projects
| they contribute or depend on who actively participate in
| conversations there.
|
| If you have a support contract though and open a case, the
| level and quality of support is usually very high.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Is this still true after the IBM acquisition?
| bonzini wrote:
| There's been absolutely no change for most employees
| after the acquisition.
| freedomben wrote:
| You make some great points, thanks (side note: I love HN
| for conversations exactly like this one). You've won me
| over somewhat. As long as the support vendor isn't
| misrepresenting what they offer and how it differs from Red
| Hat, it doesn't seem nearly as unethical as it felt
| initially. I've only had experience with a handful of
| vendors, but all of them marketed themselves as "same
| support as Red Hat, 1/4 to 1/2 the price." I find that
| gross, but if it were "we'll help you setup and configure
| your machine" rather than "use us instead of Red Hat" I
| don't really have an issue with that.
| korlja wrote:
| RedHat licenses are just too expensive by sticker price.
| Beancounters haunt us for deploying RedHat because "the
| Windows license for that box would have been cheaper in our
| licensing model". That there is support included which we
| never use doesn't matter to them, the usual suggestion being
| "buy support for one box, test everything on that one, and
| open a support case for that one box, replicate the solution
| everywhere".
|
| If you want to fix this, make a RedHat license be
| significantly cheaper than the equivalent Windows product.
| Charge for support by ticket/case and only support licensed
| boxes. You'll earn a lot more because it'll look cheaper to
| the beancounters.
| bogwog wrote:
| You're forgetting to mention the part where Rocky Linux is
| not just a rebrand of RHEL, it's a revival of CentOS, which
| IBM killed off in what's effectively a bait-and-switch,
| forcing customers to go through the painful/expensive
| migration process to another distro, or the less-painful but
| still expensive migration process to RHEL.
|
| Rocky Linux is a shining example of both a free market and
| the open source community working to the benefit consumers. I
| don't see how that's unethical.
| flatiron wrote:
| Centos 8 to alma/rocky 8 wasn't at least for me
| painful/expensive. I updated my boxes in place.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Former consultant here: There are a lot of entities out there
| that aren't really a good fit for Red Hat's service
| offerings, but who may still need the system. As others have
| said, Red Hat is a great provider if you may need support
| from someone deep in the bowels of the exact code you're
| having a problem with.
|
| Having consultants out there using CentOS/Rocky/whatever gets
| these "not a good fit" customers burden off Red Hat, which is
| probably an advantage to them. I operated what amounts to a
| "phone a Linux friend" service for ~18 years, and that sort
| of help just doesn't really fit into Red Hat's offering.
|
| It's nice in many ways to be able to disconnect from the
| licensing model and just be able to deploy Linux boxes, but
| still get help when you need it. I recall one conversation
| about Red Hat licensing related to a machine I was installing
| for a client named "The Fedora Project" that went like this:
|
| "I assume you'd like me to put Red Hat on there?" "Yes." "Can
| you provide me with a license key to use on it?" "Uhhh. Just
| go ahead and install CentOS".
| bonzini wrote:
| Yeah, that's fine. On the other hand, giving discounts for
| Linux just because you make a buttload of money from a
| certain database...
| cies wrote:
| Did CentOS not do the same? RH bought them, right? Then
| changed it to a rolling release experiment. I guess that was
| a talent acquisition? So RH benefited off the previous
| attempt to do this.
|
| Also RH packages open source project and also does not
| necessarily gives back to every project.
|
| The right to help your neighbor is important to open source.
| I find Rocky does just that.
| js4ever wrote:
| What I find gross and unethical is your attitude, it's open
| source or not? If yes don't be shocked when someone is
| reusing your code legally.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Well, it's the classic "We don't need support until we need
| support" perspective from the CFO or CIO or whomever that's
| looking to cut costs. I've had clients who always had some
| excuse for why their mission-critical production box still
| couldn't justify the cost of a proper RHEL license ("No! If
| build my PROD box on RHEL, then my DR box will have to be
| RHEL, and my Test box will have to be RHEL! So you see it's
| really _three_ licenses I 'd have to buy!") and always
| insisted on CentOS. But despite needing everything to work
| correctly 100% of the time and mandating several levels of
| redundancy, they were curiously okay with being up the creek
| if they ran into an OS problem. Go figure.
|
| FWIW, clients I dealt with were universally thrilled with
| RedHat support, the ones who had it. I had one tell me over
| the phone once, "Oh yeah! Red Hat is amazing! If an issue
| gets assigned to an engineer, it will be _resolved_ by that
| same engineer. Unlike you guys. "
| freedomben wrote:
| absolutely, I saw that quite a bit as well. I was really
| glad to see Red Hat change their policy so that non-prod
| machines are free now. That makes it a lot more affordable
| for people doing CI/CD with staging and dev environments.
| The old model disincentivized good practices.
| legalcorrection wrote:
| Live by the sword, die by the sword. Red Hat can develop a
| closed-source OS and sue people who copy it, but then no one
| would use their product. If one of your major selling points
| is open source, not to mention benefiting from all of the
| non-RH developed code that is in RHEL, you can't complain
| about the perfectly predictable consequences of that.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| I appreciate your candor, but what makes this "gross and
| unethical" exactly? RedHat itself makes money by charging for
| support on work made by thousands of other coders outside the
| company (i.e. Linus et al). It's hypocritical if you ask me.
| freedomben wrote:
| Good point, there's some hypocrisy at play here. I think
| overall though the "taking" done by RH is on the whole much
| less than most of the 3rd party support vendors. But my
| original language was a little harsher than I really feel.
|
| Red Hat funds an enormous amount of the development of
| projects (like the kernel), and makes Fedora one of the
| best (IMHO the best) distros for personal computing, so is
| one of the top contributors to the community at large.
| Their support also actively fixes bugs and sends them
| upstream.
|
| Contrast that with many of the cheaper 3rd party supports,
| who rarely if ever send contributions (beyond bug reports,
| which are sometimes a positive contribution, but frequently
| are net drain because the bug reports don't contain enough
| info to be reproducible or actionable). They also don't do
| much or any development.
|
| Of course this is a broad stereotype. I'm sure you can find
| 3rd party support providers that do contribute to the
| community.
| arsome wrote:
| The commercial support being offered is from 3rd parties, not
| from Rocky Linux itself.
| freedomben wrote:
| Yes, this is a good point to make explicitly, thank you.
| The support is from 3rd parties. Those 3rd parties are
| probably kicking some funding back, but I don't think Rocky
| is doing anything unethical by offering their rebuild or by
| accepting that money.
|
| I think overall Rocky is a net positive for the world and
| for Red Hat.
| tjader wrote:
| Is it more unethical than any other entity selling consulting
| for CentOS and Red Hat support?
| freedomben wrote:
| No, it's the same. I think the amount of upstream
| contributions (i.e. patches) that the entity sends offsets
| some of the ethicality deficit. At some point it would even
| go positive if they send enough upstream fixes.
|
| Obviously this is entirely my opinion :-D
|
| There's also an impossible-to-measure factor in the form of
| eco-system benefit though. For example, I would never have
| paid for RHEL had I not entered into the eco-system through
| Fedora and CentOS. So while RH didn't make money from my
| CentOS usage, it did eventually make them money because I
| bought RHEL later when it was worth it. I don't know how
| you would calculate that, but it does offset ethicality
| deficit somewhat as well
| mistrial9 wrote:
| hi - thank you for speaking plainly to a large tech
| audience. Isnt there some "market correction" due though,
| overall, since OSS and Linux have become so central, so
| deeply performant, while the engineers and other
| "community" repeatedly get zero money.. Although the
| point of simply cloning and re-selling the work of
| RedHat, perhaps with support claims, might look bad, we
| overall have to allow some growth for non-centralized
| players right?
| freedomben wrote:
| Yes, I agree there's value in decentralization. And to
| clarify, I don't think there are is anything unethical
| about offering a RHEL clone like Rocky and Alma do. I
| think that's a net positive for everyone, even Red Hat.
| My beef is more with the people that sell support which
| directly undermines Red Hat and ultimately hurts all eco-
| system users because it means less development, less QA,
| etc.
|
| That said market competition in general is a good thing,
| and I don't doubt for a minute that Red Hat prices would
| be a lot higher without the competition. It's a complex
| equation that's impossible to calculate since the inputs
| are immeasurable and in many cases theoretical.
| ch_123 wrote:
| I've often seen internal IT/ops departments build their own
| packages for CentOS (pre Stream days) and do their own support.
| It's not the right call for every organization, but in that
| case, the Red Hat support does little.
| orev wrote:
| I wish both Rocky and Alma well, as having multiple projects
| active keeps everyone on their toes.
|
| Glad to see this release from Rocky!
| jmclnx wrote:
| congrads on 9.0!
| jjice wrote:
| Hadn't heard about Rocky Linux since the initial announcement,
| but this is really great to see. 10 year LTS is pretty great,
| especially coming from Amazon Linux where you're lucky for three
| years...
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| Note that AlmaLinux released 9.0 about 40 days ago. They're also
| significantly faster with releasing minor updates (including
| releases like 8.6).
|
| On top of that, I like their attitude a lot more compared to what
| I've seen from Rocky's developers (regarding community
| interactions and such stuff).
|
| https://lwn.net/Articles/896438/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlmaLinux#Releases
| bubblethink wrote:
| They are both new. So, this may be a one time thing due to
| tooling changes or whatever. Too early to jump to conclusions.
| freedomben wrote:
| You're not wrong, but CentOS (from inception) has always been
| really slow to release. When RHEL 7 dropped it took months to
| get the first CentOS build. CentOS having the same found, it
| isn't terribly surprising to me to see them be a little
| slower. When Alma launched, speed of updates was a specific
| goal of theirs because CentOS had been so painful in that
| area.
|
| Most of the time I think it's fine. Mainly it hurts when
| there are security updates you need.
| Twirrim wrote:
| There's reasons why it takes time. The perspective that
| it's "just produce rebranded RPMs" really undersells even
| something as significant as the amount of server power
| required to recompile all the packages. You couldn't get
| the packages until the distribution upstream had released,
| so no way to get ahead of the build time. You just had to
| suck it up at release time.
|
| You used to be able to track the build process for CentOS
| when it was a RHEL clone, see how many packages were left
| to go as the days crawled past.
|
| Things are a little better with the way that development
| happens more recently. 6 was a massive delay for
| distributions because RedHat had overhauled a lot around
| the build process and distributions needed to completely
| overhaul their stuff too, in ways that weren't that
| obvious.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Alma Linux has always been faster for releases since the
| beginning. I believe their first release was 8.3 and was very
| ahead of Rocky and they've maintained that pace to this day.
| Security updates are within a day or two, point releases are
| within 7 days and I think the 9.0 release was less than a
| month.
|
| This is probably because the project was initially founded by
| Cloud Linux, which I believe already had the expertise to do
| RedHat clones and basically donated the setup - whereas Rocky
| started from scratch from what I can tell.
| jonathanspw wrote:
| point releases are usually within 3 days and 9.0 release
| was within 10 days :)
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| The Alma Linux team does incredible work, it's my goto
| distro since it was first released :)
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| It's been close to 1.5 years. I've been using both since the
| beginning and can see pretty well how quickly both systems
| pick up updates. But let's just look at release delays (in
| days since the official RHEL is shipped): ver
| Alm Rocky 8.4 8 34 8.5 3 6 8.6
| 2 6 9.0 9 58
|
| Not seeing any patterns here?
|
| One of them is being done by a team that's been shipping
| another Linux distribution for a decade and has the whole
| process streamlined and automated. The other started by loud
| release announcements, creating Slack groups and marketing
| materials, only then going for solving the technical stuff. I
| think I've made my choice pretty much right then and there.
|
| Seeing how Rocky guys behaved towards the community (like
| their refusal to go to a popular Linux podcast unless the
| host was willing to forego any comparisons with other Linux
| distributions), and these release delays proved that.
| mattewgm wrote:
| Faster like Springdale? This is an endurance race. CentOS
| is the survivor of several clones.
|
| "The best reason we have is our speed. If we assume all
| RHEL clones are equal in terms of software, people tend to
| then weigh speed and community size/support very heavily.
| We get new packages out very very quickly because nearly
| all the rebuilds can be automated. We had PUIAS 6 out over
| a month before CentOS 6 came out. The same is true of minor
| revisions - of CentOS, SL, and PUIAS, we had a 5.8 release
| out first." - "IAmA Developer for the PUIAS Linux
| distribution - AMA"
| stonogo wrote:
| It's amusing that you're presenting Alma as the veterans,
| seeing as how several founding members of Rocky were
| responsible for starting CentOS in the first place.
|
| But you're right, they're both RHEL clones, so it's only
| worth differentiating based on externalities. Rocky is
| backed by industry veterans and part of the 9.0 delay was
| so they could dogfood Peridot. Alma is backed by a web
| company who spent the majority of the past couple years
| Valley-washing their Russian origins. A while back I
| watched their CEO beg their executive team to cut ties with
| Russian media sites. Rockey had a community governance
| model first, they had a distro-dedicated SecureBoot
| solution first (Alma 'borrowed' CloudLinux's), and so
| forth. If your metric is 'get package releases to my AWS
| fleet first' then Alma is winning. For all the rest of the
| provisioning and longevity issues, Rocky is the winner.
| It's all a matter of priorities.
| awill wrote:
| I don't quite understand "provisioning and longevity
| issues, Rocky is winning."
|
| As a user of CentOS looking for a replacement, Alma and
| Rocky should be 100% identical. The _only_ difference is
| delay after RHEL launches.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-14 23:00 UTC)