CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it(theregister.com)
theregister.com
CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it
https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/killing_centos/
138 comments
There are many companies that are growing on free software without contributing to it much, however I would hesitate to add Red Hat to that category.
First of all they were one of the first Linux distro (I remember installing 4.2 at home) with Debian and Slackware. At those times making Linux distro was a highly unprofitable business. Companies did not care about Linux at all. Windows, Sparx, AIX, IBM mainframes, etc. everywhere.
Yet Red Hat people had a vision that Linux could be a thing in the real World and I would say, they deserve a premium for all those hungry years.
Second, Red Hat is one of the largest corporate contributors to Linux kernel. I bet that, for instance, Amazon AWS is making way more money on Linux and open software than Red Hat, yet their contribution is not particularly significant.
I am not surprised that Red Hat is not supporting financially something that is a rip-off of their software. A legal rip-off obviously and Red Hat is not suing or spreading FUD about such initiatives, but I don't see any reason why they should financially back them.
First of all they were one of the first Linux distro (I remember installing 4.2 at home) with Debian and Slackware. At those times making Linux distro was a highly unprofitable business. Companies did not care about Linux at all. Windows, Sparx, AIX, IBM mainframes, etc. everywhere.
Yet Red Hat people had a vision that Linux could be a thing in the real World and I would say, they deserve a premium for all those hungry years.
Second, Red Hat is one of the largest corporate contributors to Linux kernel. I bet that, for instance, Amazon AWS is making way more money on Linux and open software than Red Hat, yet their contribution is not particularly significant.
I am not surprised that Red Hat is not supporting financially something that is a rip-off of their software. A legal rip-off obviously and Red Hat is not suing or spreading FUD about such initiatives, but I don't see any reason why they should financially back them.
> making Linux distro was a highly unprofitable business.
Actually, for a period,in the dot-boom years, Linux distributions took plenty of investor money. Caldera, anyone? RedHat was "just" one of the few to figure out ways to survive the end of that wave.
Actually, for a period,in the dot-boom years, Linux distributions took plenty of investor money. Caldera, anyone? RedHat was "just" one of the few to figure out ways to survive the end of that wave.
Under no circumstances did anyone force Red Hat to financially back CentOS, nor did I say they didn't deserve a premium. In fact I said the opposite.
I'd say that the original investors in Red Hat have had their premium for all the hungry years, selling the business to IBM for $34 billion !
Sure, but IBM is going to want something for their $34B. Presumably they had a plan for getting that return prior to the purchase. Obviously it's not going according to plan now - they had a plan for CentOS and instead it has been destroyed. If I were IBM, I'd be taking a step back to understand things better before screwing things up more, because there is obviously a disconnect.
I think the IBM Redhat purchase could have been a very good thing if handled properly. CentOS was actually a feature of RHEL in a way, but no more.
I think the IBM Redhat purchase could have been a very good thing if handled properly. CentOS was actually a feature of RHEL in a way, but no more.
I agree with you _but_ i don't think CentOS would have survived if not for the redhat acquisition maybe they could have in some alternate way (perhaps rockylinux can achieve this?) but the cost of producing CentOS in that form was way too high if not for the contribution of Redhat,
Unpopular opionion but i think Redhat probably just extended the lifespan of the centos distribution instead of killing it straight away.
(I am saying that as someone who has donated to the rockylinux project)
Unpopular opionion but i think Redhat probably just extended the lifespan of the centos distribution instead of killing it straight away.
(I am saying that as someone who has donated to the rockylinux project)
>I agree with you _but_ i don't think CentOS would have survived if not for the redhat acquisition
Based on what? I just went digging through the archives (granted I only spent ~10 minutes) because that's not at all how I remember it, and nothing indicates the CentOS team were facing insurmountable financial hardship or asking the community for more support. Either as part of the acquisition announcement or in the months prior to it.
https://lwn.net/Articles/579551/
https://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2014/01/10/red-hats-centos-acq...
Based on what? I just went digging through the archives (granted I only spent ~10 minutes) because that's not at all how I remember it, and nothing indicates the CentOS team were facing insurmountable financial hardship or asking the community for more support. Either as part of the acquisition announcement or in the months prior to it.
https://lwn.net/Articles/579551/
https://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2014/01/10/red-hats-centos-acq...
Yeah I'm glad to see that Rocky Linux is being a little more upfront about donating and sponsoring, and that they already have some big sponsors. Granted, it was early in my career, but I don't remember CentOS soliciting support, and I had no idea they were struggling to cover costs until this comment. If it had occurred to me, I would have kicked them a few bucks (and probably convinced an employer or two to do something more substantial). I suppose the Internet makes CDs less useful, but I liked when more FOSS projects used to sell media and merchandise.
My collection vanished in one of N house moves over the years but I basically used to buy media as merchandise - having a pretty branded CD on my shelf made me happy even if I wasn't ever really using it as install media.
If Redhat had announce that CentOS would no longer receive funding, but that the community would be free to take over the project, CentOS would be even more dead.
I’m sorry for the CentOS users, but I think the reality is that it’s not a project that many want to work on. It seems to require a lot of resource and it’s an operating used by people who specifically don’t want to pay.
I’m sorry for the CentOS users, but I think the reality is that it’s not a project that many want to work on. It seems to require a lot of resource and it’s an operating used by people who specifically don’t want to pay.
I suspect you're right that most users wouldn't pay, but I've gone to Red Hat's website many times over the years looking for a package that suits me and there's nothing. There's a segment of at least one (me) where they're missing out on some money for doing no additional engineering work.
I can get the workstation offering for $299. And then I can support free-as-in-libre software, I can run the same system my customers are running in production, and I get support that's probably better than Microsoft's. I don't really know what device issues I'm going to run into, though, and in my experience it either works or it doesn't - if I have a new wireless device they don't support, I'm under no illusion that my $300 next year will be the difference between them supporting it or not.
So maybe I'll get the self-supported option. But that's kinda steep - over half the cost of full support. Especially when one way to be confident about device issues is to go install the community distro (Fedora) for free and see if an old release works. If it doesn't, I'm not betting on Red Hat. If it does work... do I want to start this whole process over again, or do I just want to get to work.
Well here's another deal breaker: if I'm trying to run the same distro my customer's use in production, I'll have lots of virtual guests. No can do: my workstation license only permits 1. Let me get the server license and just install KDE myself. The self-support option only allows physical hosts. Let me get the next tier up. Now I'm up to $800 a year, and I, as a developer of software for Linux, am going to have a very unusual use case for them, I think. Should I commit $800 for 1 year of this? Does the server edition run KDE well? I doubt many people are trying that. Now I'm too nervous to cough up $800 knowing it only lasts a year anyway.
I could see myself buying a Lenovo laptop with Red Hat pre-installed and skip this, but I would want to be able to run more than 1 virtual guest with the same system - I'm not sure if Lenovo customers get special terms. Or... I can just buy a laptop I think is better from System76 and use Pop! OS. As long as there's something resembling CentOS or Scientific Linux or Rocky Linux for virtual guests, I can get close enough to my customer's production distro that this is still by far the most attractive option.
I can get the workstation offering for $299. And then I can support free-as-in-libre software, I can run the same system my customers are running in production, and I get support that's probably better than Microsoft's. I don't really know what device issues I'm going to run into, though, and in my experience it either works or it doesn't - if I have a new wireless device they don't support, I'm under no illusion that my $300 next year will be the difference between them supporting it or not.
So maybe I'll get the self-supported option. But that's kinda steep - over half the cost of full support. Especially when one way to be confident about device issues is to go install the community distro (Fedora) for free and see if an old release works. If it doesn't, I'm not betting on Red Hat. If it does work... do I want to start this whole process over again, or do I just want to get to work.
Well here's another deal breaker: if I'm trying to run the same distro my customer's use in production, I'll have lots of virtual guests. No can do: my workstation license only permits 1. Let me get the server license and just install KDE myself. The self-support option only allows physical hosts. Let me get the next tier up. Now I'm up to $800 a year, and I, as a developer of software for Linux, am going to have a very unusual use case for them, I think. Should I commit $800 for 1 year of this? Does the server edition run KDE well? I doubt many people are trying that. Now I'm too nervous to cough up $800 knowing it only lasts a year anyway.
I could see myself buying a Lenovo laptop with Red Hat pre-installed and skip this, but I would want to be able to run more than 1 virtual guest with the same system - I'm not sure if Lenovo customers get special terms. Or... I can just buy a laptop I think is better from System76 and use Pop! OS. As long as there's something resembling CentOS or Scientific Linux or Rocky Linux for virtual guests, I can get close enough to my customer's production distro that this is still by far the most attractive option.
While annoying in terms of managing licenses, doesn’t the new 16 system developer licens solve your problem with virtual machines?
That would have addressed all my big concerns, yes. In fact, especially if it had a 7-day trial period or something there's no reason I wouldn't be down to pay for that - I'm making a living in their ecosystem after all.
But personally for me the moment's past and that offering is still not actually available AFAICT. I no longer work with customers in their ecosystem much and the CentOS dealings feel too close to embrace-extend-extinguish for me to feel like championing them again.
But personally for me the moment's past and that offering is still not actually available AFAICT. I no longer work with customers in their ecosystem much and the CentOS dealings feel too close to embrace-extend-extinguish for me to feel like championing them again.
There is a free developer program (that's been recently expanded) that you should probably take a look at.
An alternative distro is being developed here: https://rockylinux.org/
Here’s a podcast that explains the background of Rocky and Centos. It speaks to the original aims of Centos and how Rocky continues the mission and attempts to fix some of the org structure problems that lead to Centos being where it is today.
https://changelog.com/podcast/427
https://changelog.com/podcast/427
This is good news but due to the nature of widely adopted open-source projects, they are still vulnerable to a similar situation. It is listed that AWS is one of the sponsors of the Rocky Linux. Recently we have seen what happened between elastic and AWS. So, AWS could also pull an IBM and decide to drop it or tie it tightly with AWS services etc.
It is a difficult situation in general and it is a shame that this was one of the most used distros in servers.
It is a difficult situation in general and it is a shame that this was one of the most used distros in servers.
AWS wouldn't use it to compete with rocky foundation/group, they'd use it to offer a RHEL derivative on their platform.
Funding it to get a pathway to onboard RHEL-like workloads without the costly licence? Worth the change they put down for it.
Funding it to get a pathway to onboard RHEL-like workloads without the costly licence? Worth the change they put down for it.
> Recently we have seen what happened between elastic and AWS. So, AWS could also pull an IBM and decide to drop it or tie it tightly with AWS services etc.
There's a lot of reason to distrust Amazon, but this isn't what ended up happening with Elasticsearch and Kibana. Ultimately, the company Elastic took open source projects, moved them to more restrictive licenses, and Amazon came in and committed to maintaining proper open source forks.
There's a lot of reason to distrust Amazon, but this isn't what ended up happening with Elasticsearch and Kibana. Ultimately, the company Elastic took open source projects, moved them to more restrictive licenses, and Amazon came in and committed to maintaining proper open source forks.
They already have it,https://aws.amazon.com/amazon-linux-2/
CloudLinux is also working on a CentOS replacement.
https://blog.cloudlinux.com/announcing-open-sourced-communit...
https://blog.cloudlinux.com/announcing-open-sourced-communit...
There is also an alternative being developed here: https://almalinux.org/ which will be well financed by a company with years of experience.
Unfortunate name.
To say something is rocky, is like saying it's unstable/unreliable.
Why, are the Rocky Mountains about to collapse?
Also this is a sentimental name, chosen well imho.
> "Thinking back to early CentOS days... My cofounder was Rocky McGaugh. He is no longer with us, so as a H/T to him, who never got to see the success that CentOS came to be, I introduce to you...Rocky Linux"
Also this is a sentimental name, chosen well imho.
> "Thinking back to early CentOS days... My cofounder was Rocky McGaugh. He is no longer with us, so as a H/T to him, who never got to see the success that CentOS came to be, I introduce to you...Rocky Linux"
> uncertain and difficult and not likely to last long
> difficult or uncertain
> unable to balance very well
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rocky
The parent to your comment is correct, as are you about the specific reference in this case.
The etymology of the Rocky Mountains is unrelated to either:
> The Rocky Mountains were so called by 1802, translating French Montagnes Rocheuses, first applied to the Canadian Rockies. "The name is not directly self-descriptive but is an approximate translation of the name of the former Native American people here known as the Assiniboin .... The mountains are in fact not noticeably rocky"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/rocky
> difficult or uncertain
> unable to balance very well
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rocky
The parent to your comment is correct, as are you about the specific reference in this case.
The etymology of the Rocky Mountains is unrelated to either:
> The Rocky Mountains were so called by 1802, translating French Montagnes Rocheuses, first applied to the Canadian Rockies. "The name is not directly self-descriptive but is an approximate translation of the name of the former Native American people here known as the Assiniboin .... The mountains are in fact not noticeably rocky"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/rocky
Interesting... I didn’t know about Rocky McGaugh, but I’ve definitely benefited from CentOS.
In attempting to research who Rocky was, I stumbled onto this post with a dead link[0]. Anyone know the story behind Rocky and TeamHPC?
[0] https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/news-155...
In attempting to research who Rocky was, I stumbled onto this post with a dead link[0]. Anyone know the story behind Rocky and TeamHPC?
[0] https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/news-155...
No, it's because rocky shores were very hazardous to shipping, and a ship "on the rocks" was either close to, or in, immediate peril.
The homage seems lovely, but doesn't (unfortunately) change the fact that to the vast majority of english speakers "rocky" means unstable/dangerous... In fact, one of the most common expressions referring to an unstable/bad relationship is "their relationship is on the rocks" or "they are on the rocks".
The homage seems lovely, but doesn't (unfortunately) change the fact that to the vast majority of english speakers "rocky" means unstable/dangerous... In fact, one of the most common expressions referring to an unstable/bad relationship is "their relationship is on the rocks" or "they are on the rocks".
Well I'm British and whilst I understand the etymology of the phrase I really don't associate Rocky Linux with being an unstable distro, but each to their own.
I think it's safe to say that, between the primary sense of "rocky" being "made of rock" and elementary common sense, nobody does ;-).
People aren't going to think Rocky Linux is unstable for the same reasons why they don't think Apple computers rot if you leave them in the sun. Also, if a product called Red Hat Enterprise Linux was successful despite the name, I'm guessing it can't be that much of an obstacle for Rocky, either.
People aren't going to think Rocky Linux is unstable for the same reasons why they don't think Apple computers rot if you leave them in the sun. Also, if a product called Red Hat Enterprise Linux was successful despite the name, I'm guessing it can't be that much of an obstacle for Rocky, either.
[deleted]
You can't stop people from interpreting names as they will.
My reading of the name "Rocky Linux" is similar to my reading of the name "Rocky Balboa". It could be just a name, like "Foo" or it could signify toughness, as "Rocky" does as a nickname in many cases. In two non-fiction cases of boxers, "Rocky" is a diminutive of "Rock" or "The Rock".
My reading of the name "Rocky Linux" is similar to my reading of the name "Rocky Balboa". It could be just a name, like "Foo" or it could signify toughness, as "Rocky" does as a nickname in many cases. In two non-fiction cases of boxers, "Rocky" is a diminutive of "Rock" or "The Rock".
Large corporation undermines a group of people to make a buck, news at 11...
Businesses aren't your friends, repeat it with me, no matter how much propoganda they regularly spew out. Sometimes their goals may be temporarily aligned with yours in which case you can leverage their resources but never forget their goals can shift to be misaligned with yours at any point, making them a partial or direct enemy of your goals.
A business exists to make money and wealth for someone or some people. If that's not you, then they're not there to help you. I should point out that there are classes of businesses that do exist somewhat as an exception, certain charities and non-profits, but those aren't representative of the vast majority. Even they often aren't necessarily there to help you per se.
Businesses aren't your friends, repeat it with me, no matter how much propoganda they regularly spew out. Sometimes their goals may be temporarily aligned with yours in which case you can leverage their resources but never forget their goals can shift to be misaligned with yours at any point, making them a partial or direct enemy of your goals.
A business exists to make money and wealth for someone or some people. If that's not you, then they're not there to help you. I should point out that there are classes of businesses that do exist somewhat as an exception, certain charities and non-profits, but those aren't representative of the vast majority. Even they often aren't necessarily there to help you per se.
Businesses aren’t your friends. Employers aren’t your family.
Be wary of either group selling them as such.
Be wary of either group selling them as such.
This isn’t untrue but it’s also an absolutist statement. There is a big difference between Canonical and Oracle, between Zappos (before Amazon bought them) and Walmart, between Starbucks and McDonalds. Your experience working for these will be vastly different. Your experience dealing with them will be also different. And some will behave closer to “good citizens” than others.
The mistake people often make is mistaking a "fun" or "caring" atmosphere and demeanor of the company and assuming that that actually means the company cares about "fun" or cares for their employees.
If there is anything that poses a risk to the company, interferes with an employees ability to serve the company, or in any way reduces productivity... there will be no difference between canonical and oracle or even canonical and McDonalds.
The difference between your experience working at these companies is largely window dressing on the same corporate employer/employee model.
If there is anything that poses a risk to the company, interferes with an employees ability to serve the company, or in any way reduces productivity... there will be no difference between canonical and oracle or even canonical and McDonalds.
The difference between your experience working at these companies is largely window dressing on the same corporate employer/employee model.
So to you there is no difference working for McDonalds or Canonical or Oracle? And what is your solution? Work for the government? Everyone should work on the family farm because families always treat their members better than anyone else and nobody gets exploited? Do not work at all?
Again, this is like saying that if you push a person hard enough they will commit violence which immediately implies that all people are violent criminals. It’s simply not how that works, and equating all current and past behavior to what someone is capable of is silly.
Again, this is like saying that if you push a person hard enough they will commit violence which immediately implies that all people are violent criminals. It’s simply not how that works, and equating all current and past behavior to what someone is capable of is silly.
I vastly prefer working at a company that pays well and will attempt as far as a company can to care about me as an individual. My point was that it's a common error, particularly amongst people new to the workforce to mistake the impression of caring for actual caring.
Ah OK that makes sense. I have experienced working at companies that will go to greater lengths than others to accommodate their employees in lieu of profits or even profitability, but yes they all have their limits, just like individual people have limits on their altruism. It certainly is easier for an individual to be more altruistic than for a corporation.
That is like saying robbery is better than murder. Yes, it is true that Canonical is better than Oracle, but they are all businesses in the end. I've had a dozen jobs so far, some were better than others, even fun. But the one common thread in all of those jobs is - none of them gave a shit about me, however hard/smart I worked for them. I've experienced the same as a paying customer.
Customers, employees, partners etc are all means to one end, and one only - making someone rich
Customers, employees, partners etc are all means to one end, and one only - making someone rich
No it isn’t. You are using reductionist logic. Because some corporations will sell out their employees and customers under specific circumstances must mean that all of them are doing it all the time, right?
Robbery and murder have no upsides to a society. Organized labor to create something bigger than a single person can build is foundation of society. You can argue which system of organization is better (government owns and dictates everything like communism, corporations and government own and some specific categories of things and dictate what’s in their purview like capitalism, the royalty and nobility own and dictate everything like monarchy, or no organized labor exists like anarchy). But the reality is that we as a species tend to organize into tribes and work in groups and whether you call those tribes/groups corporations, government work forces, peasantry, guilds is just about what trade offs you want to make.
I will be really impressed if you can show a proof that a corporation is like murder.
Robbery and murder have no upsides to a society. Organized labor to create something bigger than a single person can build is foundation of society. You can argue which system of organization is better (government owns and dictates everything like communism, corporations and government own and some specific categories of things and dictate what’s in their purview like capitalism, the royalty and nobility own and dictate everything like monarchy, or no organized labor exists like anarchy). But the reality is that we as a species tend to organize into tribes and work in groups and whether you call those tribes/groups corporations, government work forces, peasantry, guilds is just about what trade offs you want to make.
I will be really impressed if you can show a proof that a corporation is like murder.
A company isn’t a “citizen”, it isn’t even a “person”.
Also why do we even give credence to ideas such as good corporate “citizenship”? Thank you for not destroying the economy or societal fabric..? Way to be a good for profit entity that probably still isn’t raising wages or helping with the homeless crisis..? There should be strong laws and regulations that bind companies and jail their execs if they step out of line. We shouldn’t depend so heavily on so called good corporate “citizenship”.
I didn’t vote for these executives, their boards, or their investors. This isn’t what democracy looks like.
Also why do we even give credence to ideas such as good corporate “citizenship”? Thank you for not destroying the economy or societal fabric..? Way to be a good for profit entity that probably still isn’t raising wages or helping with the homeless crisis..? There should be strong laws and regulations that bind companies and jail their execs if they step out of line. We shouldn’t depend so heavily on so called good corporate “citizenship”.
I didn’t vote for these executives, their boards, or their investors. This isn’t what democracy looks like.
Corporate citizenship lasts as long as you have a CEO that values it and the CEO has a highly profitable company that they can afford to be generous w/o pissing off the board.
Look at someplace like Costco- highly profitable, pays well above average for the sector, employee and community friendly policies... which would all go in the trash if Sams Club starting eating their lunch and their margins disappeared.
Look at someplace like Costco- highly profitable, pays well above average for the sector, employee and community friendly policies... which would all go in the trash if Sams Club starting eating their lunch and their margins disappeared.
The people who own and run companies are citizens though, with all the rights and freedoms that come with that. The fact that they are exercising those as employers or employees should make no difference. In face we all take advantage of our rights as citizens while employed or employing people all the time. Fundamentally Capitalism is simply the exercise of basic property rights and individual freedoms.
As fro democracy there's no reason you should have any say in how these people exercise their freedoms under the law, beyond your say in government and the law. If you have a problem with anything they do, then that's a matter for the law and regulation, applied equally to everyone. An idealistic view I accept, but it's what we should be aiming for.
As fro democracy there's no reason you should have any say in how these people exercise their freedoms under the law, beyond your say in government and the law. If you have a problem with anything they do, then that's a matter for the law and regulation, applied equally to everyone. An idealistic view I accept, but it's what we should be aiming for.
Relax. That’s why I put “good citizen” in quotes. They aren’t citizens but the term “good citizen” means acting in the best interest of society. I am not talking in any way about corporate personhood, just the idea that a company may do things that are a net positive or a net negative and some do more net positive things than net negative things.
> There is a big difference between Canonical and Oracle, between Zappos (before Amazon bought them) and Walmart
Right up to the moment where there isn't.
Some companies have great values, a great culture, an inspiring mission and they'll be relatively consistent in maintaining these things for quite extended periods of time: years, sometimes even decades. That's really easy to do during the good times: when you're hitting your numbers and all the trendlines are pointing upwards.
However, when things get more difficult - when there's a downturn, competitors move in, or the market simply moves on - that equation changes a lot. Sooner or later under those circumstances every business has to start making hard calls that will make it very clear to all involved that it is not a family.
We can all point to examples of businesses that have gone out of their way to look after their employees during the pandemic. But even they can't do so indefinitely (hopefully they won't have to try if the vaccination programmes work as well as we all hope). Sooner or later the values of a business will become subservient to commercial reality even if that doesn't happen to our values as individuals.
Right up to the moment where there isn't.
Some companies have great values, a great culture, an inspiring mission and they'll be relatively consistent in maintaining these things for quite extended periods of time: years, sometimes even decades. That's really easy to do during the good times: when you're hitting your numbers and all the trendlines are pointing upwards.
However, when things get more difficult - when there's a downturn, competitors move in, or the market simply moves on - that equation changes a lot. Sooner or later under those circumstances every business has to start making hard calls that will make it very clear to all involved that it is not a family.
We can all point to examples of businesses that have gone out of their way to look after their employees during the pandemic. But even they can't do so indefinitely (hopefully they won't have to try if the vaccination programmes work as well as we all hope). Sooner or later the values of a business will become subservient to commercial reality even if that doesn't happen to our values as individuals.
Right. A person is good and moral until they are starving. Then thing change a lot. The person may steal, rob, even murder. Therefore all people are murderers and we should get rid of them. QED.
I am not saying businesses should have a carte blanche to do what they want. Far from it. But in the sense that some corporations tend to behave better than others, just like some individual people tend to behave better than others, we should recognize that it is better to push all to behave better than to get rid of all of them on the grounds that the worst ones are beyond redemption.
I am not saying businesses should have a carte blanche to do what they want. Far from it. But in the sense that some corporations tend to behave better than others, just like some individual people tend to behave better than others, we should recognize that it is better to push all to behave better than to get rid of all of them on the grounds that the worst ones are beyond redemption.
Businesses aren’t your friends. Employers aren’t your family.
No, but its a helpful fiction as far as it makes everyone more convivial and agreeable. It forms a kind of shared illusion, not unlike the kayfabe of professional wrestling.
No, but its a helpful fiction as far as it makes everyone more convivial and agreeable. It forms a kind of shared illusion, not unlike the kayfabe of professional wrestling.
Yeah, you should be wary of trusting your employer too much, but if you go through your (professional) life with an attitude of "don't turn your back on anyone, they're all out to get you" the quote above will turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy...
I am hopeful that the idea of a B-Corporation[0] will catch on. While not perfect, my impression is that it would confer more benefit to their workforce and society as a whole than traditional S- and C-corps.
For the uninitiated, B-Corps "must receive a minimum score from an assessment of 'social and environmental performance', [and] integrate B Corp commitments to stakeholders into company governing documents".
Patagonia, for example[1][2], seems to be a trailblazer in being transparent about and actively improving their business in terms of logistics (monitoring "the cost of materials that have the potential to be Fair Trade Certified against the volume of materials that are purchased in a Fiscal Year"), corporate culture ("[encourage] work-life balance, as well as a focus on an individual’s physical and mental health"), end products (their "criteria for the best product rests on function, repairability, and, foremost, durability"), and so on.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification)
[1] https://bcorporation.net/directory/patagonia-inc
[2] https://www.patagonia.com/stories/benefit-corporation-update...
For the uninitiated, B-Corps "must receive a minimum score from an assessment of 'social and environmental performance', [and] integrate B Corp commitments to stakeholders into company governing documents".
Patagonia, for example[1][2], seems to be a trailblazer in being transparent about and actively improving their business in terms of logistics (monitoring "the cost of materials that have the potential to be Fair Trade Certified against the volume of materials that are purchased in a Fiscal Year"), corporate culture ("[encourage] work-life balance, as well as a focus on an individual’s physical and mental health"), end products (their "criteria for the best product rests on function, repairability, and, foremost, durability"), and so on.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification)
[1] https://bcorporation.net/directory/patagonia-inc
[2] https://www.patagonia.com/stories/benefit-corporation-update...
I like the B Corp model but would greatly prefer worker ownership.
Igalia are a good example of a worker owned company in the open source space (and they are hiring):
https://www.igalia.com/ https://www.igalia.com/jobs/
https://www.igalia.com/ https://www.igalia.com/jobs/
Thanks :)
You may have friends at work but yes, don't confuse that with the employer organization itself being your friend. The business will 99.999% do what's better for itself (as defined by the executive team, which is incentivized by the policies of the board) rather that what is best for any employee and sometimes for all employees, though there has to be some agreement with what is best for 'all employees' in order to attract any decent ones.
> Employers aren’t your family.
Unless you work for the family business ;)
Unless you work for the family business ;)
"I should point out that there are classes of businesses that do exist somewhat as an exception, certain charities and non-profits"
Not even sure about those. Quite a lot of charities and non-profits set up to fix a problem end up perpetuating it because it is a nice comfortable job.
Not even sure about those. Quite a lot of charities and non-profits set up to fix a problem end up perpetuating it because it is a nice comfortable job.
I'm pretty confident there's a lot of charities / nonprofits set up as a money laundering and tax dodging scheme.
I mean one of the richest families in NL have their money in a bank that is part of a charity.
I mean one of the richest families in NL have their money in a bank that is part of a charity.
Ikea is officially a non-profit, and pays a tax rate of 3.5% because of it
https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-...
Technically, Ikea is a Swedish multinational conglomerate whose retail locations are partly associated with a Dutch non-profit "Stichting_INGKA_Foundation" founded by Ikea's founder.
Essentially, Ikea is profitable because it utilizes a tax-avoidance strategy involving the use of a non-profit and so your comment is in my opinion basically true and they are "cheating" a bit. A pretty slick cheat, though.
Also, thank you for shining a light on this as I was ignorant of the whole thing.
Essentially, Ikea is profitable because it utilizes a tax-avoidance strategy involving the use of a non-profit and so your comment is in my opinion basically true and they are "cheating" a bit. A pretty slick cheat, though.
Also, thank you for shining a light on this as I was ignorant of the whole thing.
It goes beyond that. People create them as their own private tax heaven.
Additional reminders:
- corporate-driven open source was never about user/developer freedom
- companies have marketing departments and know how to do astroturfing
- any project that follows corporate decisions is not community-driven, even if the contributors are volunteers
- corporate-driven open source was never about user/developer freedom
- companies have marketing departments and know how to do astroturfing
- any project that follows corporate decisions is not community-driven, even if the contributors are volunteers
Refusing to invest isn't undermining. It's just refusing to invest.
Undermining would be if RedHat did things to actively sabotage CentOS, spread untrue FUD about it, file lawsuits, etc.
Undermining would be if RedHat did things to actively sabotage CentOS, spread untrue FUD about it, file lawsuits, etc.
They slowly got the majority in the CentOS steering committee thus gaining all the power they needed to kill it. And then they did. There was no "you can still be CentOS but without our funding".
It didn't happen slowly, it happened quickly. In 2014, when they effectively rescued the CentOS project by investing at a time when it had been slowly dying for a couple of years.
Undermining is a proactive action to weaken something. Refusing to invest may or may not be undermining depending on prior state and intent (a lack of action with no history can still be proactive, it simply lacks prior state information to assess). Withdraw of investment with clear negative implications is undermining, which is what happened here.
You can weaken through direct attack, withdraw of assistance, or you can even strategically offer assistance to weaken (identify largely unknown harmful processes and help them grow), amongst an array of other strategies, direct and indirect.
The grey area is if you've been a bystander to action and refuse to act one way or another because intent is the only information you have and you can't (fairly) gauge on that alone. This isn't one of those cases, this is a clear case of withdraw of active assistence which undermined CentOS. Business processes often work in reverse of what is explained. It's not likely Red Hat made a decision and then informed CentOS there would be consequences. It's far far more likely Red Hat looked for decisions that had the consequence they desired, chose one, and then informed CentOS that wasn't their intent.
These sorts of games of misdirection of intent and responsibility are played by businesses and sociopaths all the time. Decisions like this are highly strategic and implications are discussed throughly, meanwhile the narrative is crafted to then look benign and non-strategic.
You can weaken through direct attack, withdraw of assistance, or you can even strategically offer assistance to weaken (identify largely unknown harmful processes and help them grow), amongst an array of other strategies, direct and indirect.
The grey area is if you've been a bystander to action and refuse to act one way or another because intent is the only information you have and you can't (fairly) gauge on that alone. This isn't one of those cases, this is a clear case of withdraw of active assistence which undermined CentOS. Business processes often work in reverse of what is explained. It's not likely Red Hat made a decision and then informed CentOS there would be consequences. It's far far more likely Red Hat looked for decisions that had the consequence they desired, chose one, and then informed CentOS that wasn't their intent.
These sorts of games of misdirection of intent and responsibility are played by businesses and sociopaths all the time. Decisions like this are highly strategic and implications are discussed throughly, meanwhile the narrative is crafted to then look benign and non-strategic.
The title is a bit misleading IMO.
> What was the specific change? It seems that Red Hat said it would invest in Stream but not CentOS.
CentoOS Stream is still CentOS to me. Better to say Red Hat will not invest in CentOS point releases, as that is a lot less confusing.
> What was the specific change? It seems that Red Hat said it would invest in Stream but not CentOS.
CentoOS Stream is still CentOS to me. Better to say Red Hat will not invest in CentOS point releases, as that is a lot less confusing.
This is almost certainly underappreciated. A lot of software has moved away from long term support of point releases. Good luck getting one of the big cloud providers to commit to an unchanging point release of their platforms with backported security and major bug fixes. CentOS Stream is essentially RHEL nightlies that have gone through gating CI tests.
Yes I was looking for someone to see it from my view. At least I assume we are on the same page here.
What I see here is Redhat optimizing the release cycle. Please correct me if I'm wrong or my english is bad but it seems to make a lot more sense from a development standpoint to have CentOS Stream than the overhead that was each CentOS release.
And in that process they gain a sort of dev branch of RedHat that people can use to get a distro as close as possible to what RedHat will be, but also beta testers.
What I see here is Redhat optimizing the release cycle. Please correct me if I'm wrong or my english is bad but it seems to make a lot more sense from a development standpoint to have CentOS Stream than the overhead that was each CentOS release.
And in that process they gain a sort of dev branch of RedHat that people can use to get a distro as close as possible to what RedHat will be, but also beta testers.
>it seems to make a lot more sense from a development standpoint to have CentOS Stream
For many scenarios it does. It gives far more visibility into what's coming in future RHEL releases than a downstream rebuild of past point releases did. However, a lot of people are used to those backward looking point releases because "that's the way we've always done things."(tm)
I also imagine that many of the same people think nothing of using cloud platforms and services that are getting changed many times a day--but those changes are invisible for the most part so it doesn't bother them.
I'm not sure beta test is all that meaningful a term in a CI/CD world. Yes, there is final acceptance testing for official releases but a lot of software we use is basically changing all the time.
For many scenarios it does. It gives far more visibility into what's coming in future RHEL releases than a downstream rebuild of past point releases did. However, a lot of people are used to those backward looking point releases because "that's the way we've always done things."(tm)
I also imagine that many of the same people think nothing of using cloud platforms and services that are getting changed many times a day--but those changes are invisible for the most part so it doesn't bother them.
I'm not sure beta test is all that meaningful a term in a CI/CD world. Yes, there is final acceptance testing for official releases but a lot of software we use is basically changing all the time.
> CentoOS Stream is still CentOS to me. Better to say Red Hat will not invest in CentOS point releases, as that is a lot less confusing.
But the point releases will be still there - but only for RHEL.
The sad thing, which makes Stream unusable is, that RHEL does rebase packages between point releases. With the old CentOS you knew, that if there are breaking changes, they would be during point release upgrade. With Stream, you will get them randomly (and they did already happen several times since announcement).
But the point releases will be still there - but only for RHEL.
The sad thing, which makes Stream unusable is, that RHEL does rebase packages between point releases. With the old CentOS you knew, that if there are breaking changes, they would be during point release upgrade. With Stream, you will get them randomly (and they did already happen several times since announcement).
> With the old CentOS you knew, that if there are breaking changes
What manner of breaking changes would these be?
AFAIK (may be wrong, please correct if I am) by default RHEL is not locked to minor release versions (i.e. no subscription-manager release --set 8.x), but to major release versions (i.e. 8), and I have always used RHEL like this and never had serious issues with minor version updates.
In this sense CentOS stream is really just what I was already doing, CentOS stream is also split by major versions AFAIU (there is 8 stream, and will be 9 stream)[1].
EDIT:
[1]: https://centos.org/distro-faq/#q6-will-there-be-separatepara...
What manner of breaking changes would these be?
AFAIK (may be wrong, please correct if I am) by default RHEL is not locked to minor release versions (i.e. no subscription-manager release --set 8.x), but to major release versions (i.e. 8), and I have always used RHEL like this and never had serious issues with minor version updates.
In this sense CentOS stream is really just what I was already doing, CentOS stream is also split by major versions AFAIU (there is 8 stream, and will be 9 stream)[1].
EDIT:
[1]: https://centos.org/distro-faq/#q6-will-there-be-separatepara...
Stream is already at 8.4 kABI (kernel modules ABI). If you have any binary kernel modules that are not compatible, too bad. (For example, ZFS is still on 8.3).
Poppler is going to be rebased from from 0.66.0 to 20.11.0. If you have anything linked to it, it will break; you need new binaries linked against the new soname. There is a surprising number packages linked against it, and third-party ones too (e.g. GDAL, used by all geo apps out there).
Similar thing will happen with other rebased packages.
RHEL users will get that packaged in 8.4, with release notes. Stream users are getting these breakages randomly.
Poppler is going to be rebased from from 0.66.0 to 20.11.0. If you have anything linked to it, it will break; you need new binaries linked against the new soname. There is a surprising number packages linked against it, and third-party ones too (e.g. GDAL, used by all geo apps out there).
Similar thing will happen with other rebased packages.
RHEL users will get that packaged in 8.4, with release notes. Stream users are getting these breakages randomly.
In the company where I work, we pay for Windows equipped machines (The Windows license is included in the sale price), but pay nothing for CentOS equipped machines. I can understand, why Red Hat wanted to stop that.
Will CentOS stream not be feasible for them? They can always look at No-cost RHEL for small production workloads and No-cost RHEL for customer development teams (https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-enterpri...)
> CentOS is a sponsored project, we are the funding agent and we happen to also be a heavy contributor.
It would be interesting if there was a way to determine if any other open source projects have this kind of large dependency on a single company. Track GitHub accounts doing the commits which are linked to orgs perhaps?
It would be interesting if there was a way to determine if any other open source projects have this kind of large dependency on a single company. Track GitHub accounts doing the commits which are linked to orgs perhaps?
Yes, you can look at commits.
The short answer is that the vast majority of open source projects are to a large degree dependent on a single person or company. (And those without corporate funding can have trouble--as did CentOS at one or more points in its history before Red Hat picked up the funding.)
ADDED: Although major successful projects do tend to have a more diverse community because that's what takes most advantage of the open source development model.
The short answer is that the vast majority of open source projects are to a large degree dependent on a single person or company. (And those without corporate funding can have trouble--as did CentOS at one or more points in its history before Red Hat picked up the funding.)
ADDED: Although major successful projects do tend to have a more diverse community because that's what takes most advantage of the open source development model.
Open source is not free-of-charge to develop. Either a company is paying someone to contribute, or someone is dedicating voluntarily their own high-value time to contribute. Neither of the above is free.
If this can happen to CentOS, do we have to fear a comparable fate for Fedora? I've been using it for the last year, and it has been a nice change, but I wouldn't want it to die out because of strategy decisions. On the other hand, Fedora and RHEL don't seem to be in direct competition.
I don't think so. The important difference being that CentOS is/was downstream of RHEL. So, repacked RHEL to remove the branding, but otherwise exactly the same. This obviously competes with RHEL directly if you feel like you're able and willing to support the system on your own.
On the other hand, Fedora is upstream of RHEL. So, it serves an important role as a testing ground for stuff that may or may not end up in RHEL later down the line. I'm pretty sure you're safe, as it actually fills an essential role that is useful to Red Hat and that is very unlikely to eat into their main business.
On the other hand, Fedora is upstream of RHEL. So, it serves an important role as a testing ground for stuff that may or may not end up in RHEL later down the line. I'm pretty sure you're safe, as it actually fills an essential role that is useful to Red Hat and that is very unlikely to eat into their main business.
Fedora is strategically useful to Red Hat as an upstream of CentOS Stream, which is now an upstream of RHEL. As long as that remains the case, I wouldn’t expect them to pull funding.
Anything can die - even Debian (!!) could die or be taken over given enough changes.
But some are much more likely than others, and choosing which to base yourself on is a form a risk decision; perhaps a minor one.
But some are much more likely than others, and choosing which to base yourself on is a form a risk decision; perhaps a minor one.
My previous employer went all in on ditching their RHEL boxes for CentOS. I wonder how that change is treating them now. Given this change by Red Hat/IBM, was it wasted effort?
I wonder if they’ll now switch back to RHEL.
I wonder if they’ll now switch back to RHEL.
And we wonder why Red Hat would do this. I think it's for this right here.
CentOS was TOO GOOD after so long; even C-level execs were happy to sign off on using it.
CentOS was TOO GOOD after so long; even C-level execs were happy to sign off on using it.
I used to provide a dedicated server to the Fedora project, and configured it for them to use. The conversation went something like this: "I assume you would like RHEL on it?" "Yep." "Can you get us a license, so we can install it?" "Sure thing, not a problem." A few days later. "Can you just install CentOS?" This was quite a few years ago.
All the devs can chip in and contribute their 16 production server allocation each.
CentOS has been a great project, I used to use the heck out of it. But one of the things I really like about Ubuntu is that their community and LTS releases are the Same. Exact. Thing. We know when we deploy something when we will have to get off it, and don't have to worry about unofficial maintainers.
Pity it's come to this - remember this (and other) fawning coverage?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/red-hat-the-first-billion-doll...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/red-hat-the-first-billion-doll...
So, according to this article the Red Hat "liaison with the CentOS project" said:
« we went to the CentOS project and said, here is a thing Red Hat is going to do. We believe there are consequences of this action... the end result was the decision that got made by the project »
Something doesn't seem right, if CentOS is really a project capable of making its own decisions as he's trying to make it appear.
If that was the case, I wouldn't expect that the first thing the public to hear about the change would be the announcement that CentOS-in-its-previous-form was being discontinued.
I would expect to hear the board saying « Red Hat say they're no longer going to invest in CentOS in its current form. If nobody comes forward to invest with money or staff, we'll have to discontinue it. »
« we went to the CentOS project and said, here is a thing Red Hat is going to do. We believe there are consequences of this action... the end result was the decision that got made by the project »
Something doesn't seem right, if CentOS is really a project capable of making its own decisions as he's trying to make it appear.
If that was the case, I wouldn't expect that the first thing the public to hear about the change would be the announcement that CentOS-in-its-previous-form was being discontinued.
I would expect to hear the board saying « Red Hat say they're no longer going to invest in CentOS in its current form. If nobody comes forward to invest with money or staff, we'll have to discontinue it. »
interesting paragraph about the centos users, that most are anonymous who never call and never write. And if red hat is not trying to convert them to paying users, redhat doesnt get any value from them. Atleast now, with centos stream, these users will be sort of beta testers.
Debian Servers it is then.
I don't understand the heartburn people are having about this.
If you want to use a free distro, why not just move to one of the many distributions which are not tied to a for profit company?
If you want to use a free distro, why not just move to one of the many distributions which are not tied to a for profit company?
Which other distros are there which have 10 years support? It looks like there's only Oracle Linux left currently? That is like being caught between a rock and a hard place ;-)
CentOS never had support. It only had "10 years of support" in the sense that it was a mostly compatible downstream rebuild of RHEL which does have long-term support for subscription customers.
10 years of security updates/critical fixes.
Which means you can set it up once, install your mail server or whatever, and have a solid and secure system for a very long time.
Which means you can set it up once, install your mail server or whatever, and have a solid and secure system for a very long time.
If you're small, use RHEL developer license. If you're big, buy proper RHEL license.
“A lot of people would say support is 'can I just call someone', but support is also all of those updates and security fixes," he said.”
Here’s the crux of it.
Here’s the crux of it.
This comment concerns me:
"The next version will not be like Stream 8. "We have said publicly this is not the way it's going to be. Stream 9 is going to show you that code flows from Fedora to CentOS Stream"
To me, this indicates Stream will be rather close to Fedora. Right now Stream seems rather stable. But that tells me Stream will be a rolling release of Fedora. Do others read it that way ?
"The next version will not be like Stream 8. "We have said publicly this is not the way it's going to be. Stream 9 is going to show you that code flows from Fedora to CentOS Stream"
To me, this indicates Stream will be rather close to Fedora. Right now Stream seems rather stable. But that tells me Stream will be a rolling release of Fedora. Do others read it that way ?
Currently, Fedora is mostly used to rebase (only) major RHEL releases. I read the statement as a desire to flow Fedora innovations into RHEL via CentOS Stream more incrementally.
Centos was my first touch with Linux in virtual machine in vagrant. It was kind of standart to use centos.
So, we finally see IBM showing its ugly face. No more CentOS.
Why are people assuming this is in any way IBM's doing? I know it's easy to say "IBM bad" but everything that has been said so far indicates this was a joint decision between Red Hat engineering and the CentOS project board members.
The cognitive dissonance in assuming every acquisition of a smaller company by a bigger one immediately results in the collapse of said small company is unreal.
The cognitive dissonance in assuming every acquisition of a smaller company by a bigger one immediately results in the collapse of said small company is unreal.
Whilst I'm not sure that there is strong evidence for this being related to the IBM acquisition, the idea of "blue wash" where acquired products have their licensing changed to fit in with IBM's way of doing things is so common that there's even an IBM web page about it https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/what-blue-wash.
To quote that page "Once customers upgrade to IBM?s product it is often too late to negotiate and avoid hefty licensing charges associated with changed licensing metrics? "
To quote that page "Once customers upgrade to IBM?s product it is often too late to negotiate and avoid hefty licensing charges associated with changed licensing metrics? "
It's not small versus big, Red Hat was a $34B acquisition. It's big and bigger. People are pointing at IBM because this is 100% the predictable consequence of a company like IBM purchasing an open source software organization. Open source isn't in their business model, so of course this was going to happen.
>Open source isn't in their business model
There's a very good possibility that Linux wouldn't have had the impact that it has had absent IBM's investments in the early 2000s. It's not an "open source company" but it has significant investments in open source.
There's a very good possibility that Linux wouldn't have had the impact that it has had absent IBM's investments in the early 2000s. It's not an "open source company" but it has significant investments in open source.
IBM of 2020 isn't the IBM of 2000. I'll look at their actions, not their words.
Except of course CentOS stream.
they have no face, just a series of rules, methods, procedures,..etc. in all, a culture desgined by multiple generations of firm executives optimized to make profit in any way they can.
Well, they are a for profit company.
I'm only trying to say what they really are. it would be unfair to judge them only based on what they are.
then again, I see open source slowly but steadily losing ground. and if open source has a tough time. free software has it even worse.
then again, I see open source slowly but steadily losing ground. and if open source has a tough time. free software has it even worse.
The Free Software community is having a Renaissance right now and making advances on nearly every front.
Turns out not compromising your principals and being zealots works.
Turns out not compromising your principals and being zealots works.
Free software is doing well, yes. Businesses built-around free software, not so much. The list of successful companies based on fully FOSS software can practically be counted on one hand. Most of the time, the product may be very successful, but the company is really struggling.
A lot of OSS development is now done by companies who don't care that much about the software, because their revenue is totally independent. Netflix, Uber, Microsoft, etc.
Or it's open-core like Redis and Gitlab, with paid proprietary bits. Or "open source" with anti-service-provider licenses like MongoDB, Elastic, Redis.
A lot of OSS development is now done by companies who don't care that much about the software, because their revenue is totally independent. Netflix, Uber, Microsoft, etc.
Or it's open-core like Redis and Gitlab, with paid proprietary bits. Or "open source" with anti-service-provider licenses like MongoDB, Elastic, Redis.
Wait, what have I missed?
I thought copyleft licensing has been steadily losing share to permissive licensing for a long time, with no end in sight. Can you point to information indicating otherwise?
The Linux kernel itself keeps going from success to success, but that seems to be the last major copyleft bastion, and they also somewhat famously rejected GPLv3.
I thought copyleft licensing has been steadily losing share to permissive licensing for a long time, with no end in sight. Can you point to information indicating otherwise?
The Linux kernel itself keeps going from success to success, but that seems to be the last major copyleft bastion, and they also somewhat famously rejected GPLv3.
I think this is true, with the MIT license being the most popular.
From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
Furthermore, unlike many other projects, Linux is not licensed GPLv2 or later and doesn't have copyright assignment. This makes changing the license unilaterally at least problematic. Not necessarily impossible but, at least some would argue the permission of all the contributors would be required which would be basically impossible.
Yes, Linus himself mentioned they'd all need to be contacted and agree. He also said he saw the GPLv3 draft and so it was an early and conscious decision to not have a 'GPLv2 or later' license.
There were differences of opinion at the time. Eben Moglen said something to the effect that it could probably be relicensed on the theory that its history suggested it could be treated as a collective work. But it would have been controversial and Linus didn't want to anyway so discussions never went further than that.
Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...
Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...
Sad! It takes years of rock solidness to make a name in Linux for reliability, and basically one stupid decision to destroy a reputation.
CentOS brought people in to the EcoSystem as an alternative to Debian Based distros and that is sadly no more.
CentOS brought people in to the EcoSystem as an alternative to Debian Based distros and that is sadly no more.
Smells like IBM-patrons decision to weed out plebs giving away for free "enterprise solution" they milk.
I feel for RedHat employees on the "Centos Stream" team. They are now working a product that is just a testing waystation between Fedora and RHEL, and will have no actual users.
Personally, I'm very happy the new RedHat showed their true colors so fast: it helped me decide to leave their ecosystem.
EDIT: added "the new" to qualify the statement about RedHat, as indeed it's IBM at play. No amount of "kernel support" is worth the trouble of dealing with them.
EDIT: added "the new" to qualify the statement about RedHat, as indeed it's IBM at play. No amount of "kernel support" is worth the trouble of dealing with them.
Choices are though if you want to leave the RedHat ecosystem. Sure you can leave CentOS for Debian or Fedora for Ubuntu, but the entire Linux ecosystem is gradually becoming RedHat ecosystem.
> the entire Linux ecosystem is gradually becoming RedHat ecosystem.
No. Suse still exists, if you don't like Debian based distribution. But my money is on the Debians - and more specifically, on Ubuntu.
For server stuff, Ubuntu is great - commercial support with various cloud providers, lots of prepackaged software (including the commercial software I use).
For hiring, a lot of students run either Debian or Ubuntu on their own computers - meaning I don't have to teach them the intricacies of rpm like apt search is rpm -Q, apt install is rpm -i ...
Icing on the cake is ZFS as the rootfs filesystem out of the box since the last few Ubuntus.
RedHat was innovative, like when they replaced ext4 by XFS as the default filesystem, but that was like 15 years ago.
Still, big money make miracles happen. If IBM can arrange some relicensing of ZFS with Oracle, they could use it on RedHat, but it'd take me a lot of cajoling to even consider switching back - much more than a filesystem that's the minimal prerequisite to just put RedHat on the list of options. Bitten once, twice shy you know?
Anyway, given how it's favored for WSL, Microsoft will eventually fork or buy Ubuntu from Canonical or just buy Canonical outright, which will make it even more of a rival to RedHat in the long term.
No. Suse still exists, if you don't like Debian based distribution. But my money is on the Debians - and more specifically, on Ubuntu.
For server stuff, Ubuntu is great - commercial support with various cloud providers, lots of prepackaged software (including the commercial software I use).
For hiring, a lot of students run either Debian or Ubuntu on their own computers - meaning I don't have to teach them the intricacies of rpm like apt search is rpm -Q, apt install is rpm -i ...
Icing on the cake is ZFS as the rootfs filesystem out of the box since the last few Ubuntus.
RedHat was innovative, like when they replaced ext4 by XFS as the default filesystem, but that was like 15 years ago.
Still, big money make miracles happen. If IBM can arrange some relicensing of ZFS with Oracle, they could use it on RedHat, but it'd take me a lot of cajoling to even consider switching back - much more than a filesystem that's the minimal prerequisite to just put RedHat on the list of options. Bitten once, twice shy you know?
Anyway, given how it's favored for WSL, Microsoft will eventually fork or buy Ubuntu from Canonical or just buy Canonical outright, which will make it even more of a rival to RedHat in the long term.
>meaning I don't have to teach them the intricacies of rpm like apt search is rpm -Q, apt install is rpm -i ...
"rpm" is not an equivalent to "apt", it's an equivalent to "dpkg".
The tool you would actually use is "dnf" or "yum", which isn't any more difficult to use than "apt" is.
"dnf search"
"dnf install"
"dnf remove"
"dnf list"
etc.
It's fine to prefer Debian / Ubuntu but please don't repeat information that's a decade out of date :)
"rpm" is not an equivalent to "apt", it's an equivalent to "dpkg".
The tool you would actually use is "dnf" or "yum", which isn't any more difficult to use than "apt" is.
"dnf search"
"dnf install"
"dnf remove"
"dnf list"
etc.
It's fine to prefer Debian / Ubuntu but please don't repeat information that's a decade out of date :)
> It's fine to prefer Debian / Ubuntu but please don't repeat information that's a decade out of date :)
Fair enough!
Fair enough!
Which kind of proves the point how hard it is to make any money out of FOSS when software is the product.
You mean, if there were other successful companies other than RedHat, the ecosystem would be more diverse?
SUSE is successful too, just small.
Canonical has a wide audience but they've been unable to actually translate that into a self-sustaining business. They're lucky that Mark Shuttleworth is committed guy and not too attached to his stacks of money.
Canonical has a wide audience but they've been unable to actually translate that into a self-sustaining business. They're lucky that Mark Shuttleworth is committed guy and not too attached to his stacks of money.
I just asked GP to clarify what he meant.
My original comment was exactly about the ways canonical, SUSE, Debian and others are dependent on RedHat. Canonical attempted to develop upstart as their in house systemd alternative but they failed. Exactly the same thing happened with their attempt at their own graphics stack.
I don't know a lot about SUSE, but iirc their distro is also systemd based.
Edit: Suse's package manager is also based on RPM.
My original comment was exactly about the ways canonical, SUSE, Debian and others are dependent on RedHat. Canonical attempted to develop upstart as their in house systemd alternative but they failed. Exactly the same thing happened with their attempt at their own graphics stack.
I don't know a lot about SUSE, but iirc their distro is also systemd based.
Edit: Suse's package manager is also based on RPM.
I see Ubuntu future in the hands of Microsoft!
Asking a fortune 100 to drop RHEL for Ubuntu is a tough order. If a company has a very, very tight hold on their deployments, it could be done. If a company allows for an open form of their deployments, it becomes unlikely if the goal is stability and not progress. And I say this as an Ubuntu lover. It's a complaint against lockin and not the destination platform.
Let me introduce you to our lord and savior OpenSuse.
Which uses systemd (developed by RedHat) and has package management built on top of RPM (developed by RedHat)
To be totally fair to SUSE, they do have plenty of notable contributions into the "RPM ecosystem". Libsolv, which SUSE wrote for their Zypper package manager, is also used by DNF for example.
They also do plenty of kernel development -- not as much as RH due to sheer size, but still significant. Whereas Canonical doesn't really do any.
They also do plenty of kernel development -- not as much as RH due to sheer size, but still significant. Whereas Canonical doesn't really do any.
[deleted]
So the people for whom Red Hat provided no measurable value beyond the intrinsic value of what you downloaded. The copyright for which is largely owned by Not Red Hat, and thus they're bound by the GPL.
Red Hat adds incremental value to those projects and organizes the distribution - they deserve to get paid for that, of course. But they were paid - they are the stick by which all other open source companies measure their commercial success. If you advertise being open source as a good thing, the ability to fork is a feature, not a bug. So the Rocky Linuxes of the world are inevitable and a good thing.
Acquiring the CentOS project and then killing it is destroying a lot of community good will and I have no sympathy...