nazunalika

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by nazunalika 1y ago

   For sure, we needed a build infrastructure for RISC-V. I started out with five VisionFive 2's in my lab, and they're still doing work as needed. Granted, those are quite slow and painful because some builds will take a long, long
2. 2.▲
   by nazunalika 1y ago

   >One of the main value propositions of RHEL (and RHL before it) is that each distro version has a fixed ABI throughout (kernel included), making it a valid compilation target for binary-only software. Neither Stream nor even Alma are tha
3. 3.▲
   by nazunalika 1y ago

   I cannot speak for AlmaLinux, but it's incorrect to say they're not compatible. They are most definitely still compatible with the upstream distributions. Yes, they have made some changes that make them quite different from the up
4. 4.▲
   by nazunalika 1y ago

   >CentOS used to be a free rebranding of RHEL. CentOS was a binary/functionally compatible build of RHEL without the RHEL branding. >IBM effectively cut off CentOS. Red Hat (not IBM) made the decision to end CentOS Linux and move
5. 5.▲
   by nazunalika 3y ago

   There's actually a (very silly) reason for not removing /etc/redhat-release. There's many applications out there that rely on that file's existence, even if it's just a symlink to the proper file. Some apps use