6 ms·

I would avoid Rocky since it is now resting on very shaky foundations.

by CodeCompost 3y ago

keikobadthebad 3y ago
Could you be specific? Else it sounds like you're just FUDding it.
- heywoodlh 3y ago
  My understanding is that since Red Hat restricted the source availability for RHEL, Rocky is using the following loopholes to gain binary compatibility with RHEL: 1. Using OCI images of RHEL (i.e. on Docker Hub) 2. Using cloud server images of RHEL They outlined their plans for this in June of 2023[0]. Red Hat’s official stance is that downstream distros like Rocky or AlmaLinux should be basing off of CentOS Stream — that would allow all the EL distributions to contribute and use the same OS base[1]. AlmaLinux pivoted to this method[2] — which seems like a more sustainable approach to me. My opinion: blows my mind that people who value Enterprise Linux would be willing to continue to use a distro like Rocky that actively works against/around the supported route its upstream provider suggests. (Personally, I don’t find value in the EL ecosystem, I prefer rolling releases everywhere when possible) [0] https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ [1] https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s... [2] https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    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...
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    >> Red Hat’s official stance is that downstream distros like Rocky or AlmaLinux should be basing off of CentOS Stream — that would allow all the EL distributions to contribute and use the same OS base That stance goes contrary to the "everyone benefits" nature of free and open source software. It turns "everyone benefits" into "Red Hat / IBM profits". Why should the community contribute to Red Hat's bottom line if Red Hat refuses to contribute back to the community? Rocky Linux's "going around Red Hat's back" is only necessary because of Red Hat's choice to not contribute back to the community. If IBM wants to expand its AIX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX) business, it can do so without tainting Red Hat.
    - doublepg23 3y ago
      Accusing Red Hat of not contributing to the wider free software community is so off-base I’m not sure how to respond. Is there a single large FOSS project who’s git history isn’t filled with @redhat.com ?
      - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
        Oh, so is it okay to share RHEL sources back with the original project communities or not? If you share RHEL sources with the original project communities, what happens? >> Is there a single large FOSS project who’s git history isn’t filled with @redhat.com ? Does this give Red Hat the right to effectively "close source" the code for RHEL despite contributions from the rest of the community?
        heywoodlh 3y ago
        > Does this give Red Hat the right to effectively "close source" the code for RHEL despite contributions from the rest of the community? Legally, yes. Not sure what the point is you're trying to make. I'm not sure why anyone would want to use a downstream distribution of Red Hat if they don't like Red Hat's trajectory. If you don't like Red Hat's current objectives with RHEL, it should be as simple as: stop using something downstream of RHEL.
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    So what? Doesn't matter how convoluted the "loophole" is. There will always be a loophole because Red Hat must leave one open, because this is open-source software and it's impossible for them to truly close all avenues to using your RIGHTS under the license. We should he celebrating people working around DRM, not being fearful of it.
    - heywoodlh 3y ago
      Fair enough! As I stated, I have no personal stake in Rocky's approach as I am not a user interested in the Enterprise Linux ecosystem. That being said, if I was, I would be concerned with the approach as I can't see it being sustainable long-term to rely on the workarounds. (I'd be happy if the Rocky Linux folks prove me wrong -- the more variety there is with Linux, the better!)
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    IBM's official route results in a distro that is not bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL, at least not without a lot of unnecessary work. The route Rocky is taking results in a distro that is bug-for-bug compatible.
    - heywoodlh 3y ago
      > The route Rocky is taking results in a distro that is bug-for-bug compatible. Point taken. From my perspective, it seems like a short-sighted approach to rely on loopholes to obtain bug-for-bug compatibility. I know I wouldn't be comfortable running anything production-grade on Rocky Linux with their current approach.
      - Timber-6539 3y ago
        I believe if Red Hat had legal grounds to sue Rocky, they would have done so already. And there's no possible way for RH to obfuscate their sources so Rocky will continue releasing an exact RHEL clone unless Red Hat sunsets RHEL.

I would avoid Rocky since it is now resting on very shaky foundations.

keikobadthebad 3y ago

Could you be specific? Else it sounds like you're just FUDding it.

heywoodlh 3y ago
My understanding is that since Red Hat restricted the source availability for RHEL, Rocky is using the following loopholes to gain binary compatibility with RHEL: 1. Using OCI images of RHEL (i.e. on Docker Hub) 2. Using cloud server images of RHEL They outlined their plans for this in June of 2023[0]. Red Hat’s official stance is that downstream distros like Rocky or AlmaLinux should be basing off of CentOS Stream — that would allow all the EL distributions to contribute and use the same OS base[1]. AlmaLinux pivoted to this method[2] — which seems like a more sustainable approach to me. My opinion: blows my mind that people who value Enterprise Linux would be willing to continue to use a distro like Rocky that actively works against/around the supported route its upstream provider suggests. (Personally, I don’t find value in the EL ecosystem, I prefer rolling releases everywhere when possible) [0] https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ [1] https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s... [2] https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/ https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  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...
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  >> Red Hat’s official stance is that downstream distros like Rocky or AlmaLinux should be basing off of CentOS Stream — that would allow all the EL distributions to contribute and use the same OS base That stance goes contrary to the "everyone benefits" nature of free and open source software. It turns "everyone benefits" into "Red Hat / IBM profits". Why should the community contribute to Red Hat's bottom line if Red Hat refuses to contribute back to the community? Rocky Linux's "going around Red Hat's back" is only necessary because of Red Hat's choice to not contribute back to the community. If IBM wants to expand its AIX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX) business, it can do so without tainting Red Hat.
  - doublepg23 3y ago
    Accusing Red Hat of not contributing to the wider free software community is so off-base I’m not sure how to respond. Is there a single large FOSS project who’s git history isn’t filled with @redhat.com ?
    - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
      Oh, so is it okay to share RHEL sources back with the original project communities or not? If you share RHEL sources with the original project communities, what happens? >> Is there a single large FOSS project who’s git history isn’t filled with @redhat.com ? Does this give Red Hat the right to effectively "close source" the code for RHEL despite contributions from the rest of the community?
      - heywoodlh 3y ago
        > Does this give Red Hat the right to effectively "close source" the code for RHEL despite contributions from the rest of the community? Legally, yes. Not sure what the point is you're trying to make. I'm not sure why anyone would want to use a downstream distribution of Red Hat if they don't like Red Hat's trajectory. If you don't like Red Hat's current objectives with RHEL, it should be as simple as: stop using something downstream of RHEL.
- phendrenad2 3y ago
  So what? Doesn't matter how convoluted the "loophole" is. There will always be a loophole because Red Hat must leave one open, because this is open-source software and it's impossible for them to truly close all avenues to using your RIGHTS under the license. We should he celebrating people working around DRM, not being fearful of it.
  - heywoodlh 3y ago
    Fair enough! As I stated, I have no personal stake in Rocky's approach as I am not a user interested in the Enterprise Linux ecosystem. That being said, if I was, I would be concerned with the approach as I can't see it being sustainable long-term to rely on the workarounds. (I'd be happy if the Rocky Linux folks prove me wrong -- the more variety there is with Linux, the better!)
- josephcsible 3y ago
  IBM's official route results in a distro that is not bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL, at least not without a lot of unnecessary work. The route Rocky is taking results in a distro that is bug-for-bug compatible.
  - heywoodlh 3y ago
    > The route Rocky is taking results in a distro that is bug-for-bug compatible. Point taken. From my perspective, it seems like a short-sighted approach to rely on loopholes to obtain bug-for-bug compatibility. I know I wouldn't be comfortable running anything production-grade on Rocky Linux with their current approach.
    - Timber-6539 3y ago
      I believe if Red Hat had legal grounds to sue Rocky, they would have done so already. And there's no possible way for RH to obfuscate their sources so Rocky will continue releasing an exact RHEL clone unless Red Hat sunsets RHEL.