[HN Gopher] Red Hat announces no-cost RHEL for small production ...
___________________________________________________________________
Red Hat announces no-cost RHEL for small production environments
Author : IceWreck
Score : 97 points
Date : 2021-01-20 13:50 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.redhat.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.redhat.com)
| Cuuugi wrote:
| I'm thinking this news is related.
|
| https://www.servethehome.com/red-hat-goes-full-ibm-and-says-...
|
| I'd still prefer CentOS lived, this is probably meant to keep
| people from grabbing pitchforks.
| broknbottle wrote:
| meh if you don't want to use centos stream then I would just
| switch to openSUSE Leap. Zypper is very similar to yum/dnf, so
| it's not like your switching to apt/apt-get or alpine apk and
| learning completely different package manager.
| BossingAround wrote:
| Is openSUSE Leap more stable than CentOS Stream?
| nix23 wrote:
| I would say they are the same (LEAP and Centos (not stream)),
| you can change instantly to SLES if you need too. Leap15 =
| SLES15, Leap15.1 = SLES15sp1 and so on.
| type0 wrote:
| Thumbs up for OpenSUSE, RH should have taken an example from
| how closely SUSE operates with the community, sadly I think Red
| Hat is too big and too corporate to give a damn now.
| strzibny wrote:
| I wish OpenSUSE has more love, but it's important to realize
| some differences are still there. Namely:
|
| 1, OpenSUSE Leap cannot do full version upgrades 2, They use
| AppArmor instead of SELinux 3, Support is shorter than CentOS
| Stream[0]
|
| [0] https://nts.strzibny.name/how-long-will-be-centos-stream-
| sup...
| choeger wrote:
| The production licenses for RHEL are certainly expensive, but
| it's not my job to decide whether they are worth it. My job is to
| develop and ship software to customers that used to run Ubuntu,
| CentOS, and sometimes RHEL. To compile/build/package that
| software we use docker containers, which provide nice isolation
| and hygiene and also guarantee user-space ABI compatibility to
| the target system. What I'd like to know: How can I user
| containers to develop for RHEL now? Is there some "short-lived"
| clause I could depend on or do I have to buy a license for every
| container I might want to spin up?
| chasil wrote:
| Red Hat offers a "no support" server license for $350/year,
| which is the lowest licensing tier. Tiers with more capability
| and support are available for $800, and $1300.
|
| https://www.redhat.com/en/store/red-hat-enterprise-linux-ser...
|
| Oracle has a larger range of tiers. The "no support" license is
| $120/year. Tiers with more capability and support are available
| for $500, $1200, $1400, and $2300.
|
| Oracle Linux can be used in production without a paid license
| of any kind; Red Hat Linux cannot be used in this way for large
| deployments (excepting the new 16-seat license for a developer
| account).
|
| Red Hat is aggressive with software audits; I have seen one.
|
| https://www.oracle.com/linux/
|
| Both Oracle and Red Hat now have complete toolsets to convert
| support between an installed CentOS/RedHat/Oracle OS.
|
| Red Hat can now convert an installed CentOS or Oracle Linux to
| RHEL; previously a wipe and reinstall was required ("have fun
| reinstalling your system" is still on Oracle's CentOS site).
| The description looks much more thorough in replacing all
| possible packages with Red Hat versions:
|
| https://access.redhat.com/articles/2360841
|
| Oracle does not replace CentOS or RedHat RPMs in their
| conversion (AFAIK), so it is much less violent on the platform
| changes.
|
| https://github.com/oracle/centos2ol
|
| https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
|
| https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/reasons-for-switching-centos-...
|
| Red Hat has terminated two major platforms over the last two
| decades - the original Red Hat Linux, which was terminated at
| v9, and now CentOS.
|
| Oracle has "somewhat" terminated a platform, Oracle Linux for
| SPARC, which was only supported for two minor releases. The
| Linux for ARM64 and AMD64/x86 seem reasonably healthy.
|
| There is other baggage in and between these corporations, but
| the track record on Linux OS platforms between these two is
| demonstrably different.
| severino wrote:
| > Oracle has a larger range of tiers. The "no support"
| license is $120/year.
|
| > Oracle Linux can be used in production without a paid
| license of any kind
|
| So... what offers this $120/year "no support" license when
| you can use it with no cost at all for production?
| technick wrote:
| My previous employer from 2017 was paying around $68 per
| license from Red Hat and it didn't include support. It wasn't
| a massive volume deal either, had less than 50 RHEL servers
| in the environment.
| chasil wrote:
| We shifted a bunch of Red Hat licenses to a hosting
| provider, and Red Hat auditors showed up.
|
| Oracle does the same thing, but they don't care about OS
| licensing. One thing that they do care about is the
| extended support (RPM updates after end of life).
| dralley wrote:
| >Oracle has "somewhat" terminated a platform, Oracle Linux
| for SPARC, which was only supported for two minor releases.
| The Linux for ARM64 and AMD64/x86 seem reasonably healthy.
|
| You're forgetting:
|
| * They killed OpenSolaris by making it proprietary again
|
| * They effectively killed Solaris (formerly OpenSolaris)
| without the formality of making it official
| dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2017/09/04/the-sudden-death-and-eternal-
| life-of-solaris/
| chasil wrote:
| I did say "track record on Linux OS platforms," but I will
| grant you that Solaris has contracted under Oracle.
|
| However, there is a long list of platforms that would never
| have survived elsewhere. JD Edwards, Peoplesoft, and Siebel
| are prime examples.
|
| And I am still using the Oracle RDB database platform.
|
| Red Hat would have euthanized all of these long, long ago.
| dralley wrote:
| Do you not find it slightly unfair to count RHL, which
| began in 1995 and ended in 2003, when Oracle Linux wasn't
| released until 2006?
| chasil wrote:
| At the time, it ended a major professional chapter of my
| life.
|
| I do not consider it unfair.
| syshum wrote:
| The $350 license has some real limits to it
|
| 1. It clearly states "Not for Production" on the license
|
| 2. It says it can not be stacked with other license, I am not
| sure if that means you can only have this license and not
| others in the environment
|
| 3. the biggest is Physical hardware Only, no VM's.
| dralley wrote:
| Look into the RHEL Universal Base Image.
|
| https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/introducing-red-hat-universal...
|
| https://developers.redhat.com/articles/ubi-faq#introduction
|
| re: licensing, the FAQ says: Do I need a
| subscription to use UBI?
|
| _No, the Red Hat Universal Base Images and all associated
| content can be used for development and deployment without the
| need for a Red Hat subscription. However, for a fully supported
| operational experience and access to an expanded list of non-
| UBI tools, containers built on UBI must be deployed on a Red
| Hat platform such as OpenShift or RHEL._
|
| Accessing non-UBI content does require a Red Hat subscription.
| hiram112 wrote:
| I'd love to support RHEL financially, both on the server and on
| the development laptop. But I just don't trust that any of this
| extra cash flow they may see will go towards anything but 5% IBM
| dividends, obscene executive and sales salaries, with nothing
| left over for R&D and especially continued American jobs (IBM is
| basically an Indian company, now).
|
| I hope my large government customers ditch RHEL for something
| else - maybe a derivative that's home grown.
| chomp wrote:
| I appreciate the thought, but am still miffed at the "embrace,
| extend, extinguish" that caught me off guard here. I can't
| exactly pull out too many pitch forks because CentOS did let me
| enjoy some of their packaging labor for free.
|
| It's obvious in retrospect that their intention was to pull this
| when they acquired the CentOS project - plotting to turn CentOS
| into a RHEL on-ramp while dressing it as an embrace of the
| community feels like a kick in the groin.
|
| Also, 16 servers is barely enough for tech companies caught by
| this, and is less of a good will gesture, and more subscription
| growth hacking.
| ehutch79 wrote:
| I had to wade through a bunch of modals, and then the page kept
| jumping around...
|
| Doesn't engender a bunch of trust.
| ArcMex wrote:
| Works for my current use case. Will still keep my eye on Rocky.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| In other news, farmer Bob announces that he's closed the barn
| doors and asks all the cows which left to please come home.
| awill wrote:
| First, they should have announced this when they killed CentOS.
|
| Second, this is only of value to the teeny tiny companies and
| individual users with a single server in their home. Small
| companies with any expectation of growth should probably just use
| Rocky instead from the get go.
|
| I have a single server in my home running CentOS 7. I gain
| nothing by using RHEL over Rocky in the future, except with RHEL
| I have to accept ToS, do some subscription checks, and run the
| risk that Red Hat cancels this programme down the road. I only
| see this of value for someone who actually runs real RHEL in
| prod, and needs to test/validate hardware/software. For anyone
| just wanting 'free' RHEL, they should just use Rocky.
| ehayes wrote:
| I manage a "tiny company", but we have 10-ish production CentOS
| 7/8 servers and this sounds interesting. Although my web-app
| use case is probably fine with Stream, I don't know why
| everyone is assuming Stream will be completely broken and
| useless.
| 1337shadow wrote:
| Okay but I can't help but think about the social security in
| my country which I know runs likely to be more than hundreds
| of CentOS servers ... It's not like social security is a
| company making any profits, it's even the opposite, and now
| they are in such situation.
| ziml77 wrote:
| It's not that the expectation is that it will be broken and
| useless. It's that the reason to choose CentOS was for the
| fact that it has slow release cycles which allow for long
| support periods.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > I don't know why everyone is assuming Stream will be
| completely broken and useless.
|
| It probably wont be _completely_ broken and useless, but they
| replaced a stable OS with a beta, which is particularly
| galling to many users who picked that OS _specifically_
| because it was so stable.
| freedomben wrote:
| Curious, do you consider Fedora to be an alpha? Did you
| consider RHEL to be a beta for CentOS previously?
|
| Just trying to see how you define "beta"
| eropple wrote:
| To me, Fedora is a desktop environment (my preferred
| one!) and absolutely an alpha/early-beta server option at
| best.
|
| CentOS Stream seems like "Fedora, again" and does not do
| what CentOS did. And now, the willingness to blow up
| CentOS with so little warning means there is a massive
| trust deficit here.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > Curious, do you consider Fedora to be an alpha?
|
| Slightly detached because of their processing/release
| process (Fedora X never quite matched to RHEL Y even if
| there was some derivation), but yes, Fedora is absolutely
| the alpha for RHEL. It gets changes, including breaking
| changes, on a fast track (IIRC, Fedora frequently goes
| toe-to-toe with _Arch_ for having the most recent
| packages), has a 13-month lifecycle with a strong
| expectation that you 'll `dnf system-upgrade` regularly,
| and doesn't shy away from pushing on tech that they
| believe to be desirable even if it's not (yet) widely
| used (Wayland, BTRFS, CGroupsV2).
|
| > Did you consider RHEL to be a beta for CentOS
| previously?
|
| Now _that 's_ an interesting point that actually makes me
| stop and consider:) It is true that previously CentOS
| could legitimately claim to be even more stable/slow-
| moving than RHEL. I think the distinction that I would
| make is that RHEL had its own betas that were called
| betas, and that each point release was frozen/stable
| until the next one came along, while Stream is explicitly
| unfrozen all the time. So yes, I suppose a person _could_
| have described RHEL as CentOS 's beta, although probably
| only jokingly because it still had Red Hat supporting it
| and feature freezes to control changes.
| awill wrote:
| I think you're digging in the wrong place, and focusing
| on the label. This shouldn't be kicking fedora down. It
| has a place, as does stream.
|
| The point is that with CentOS you expect a super stable
| release. Red Hat replaced that with what is clearly a
| less stable project. And as was said before, if you used
| CentOS, it's probably precisely because you want
| something super stable with long term support. Those are
| not the sorts of users who'll want to use Stream.
| bombcar wrote:
| Many people use CentOS to run "Enterprise" software that
| expects to be run on RHEL.
| alexhutcheson wrote:
| Those are probably the users that RedHat is trying to nudge
| onto RHEL. "Enterprise" software is normally quite
| expensive, so the marginal cost of some RHEL Server
| licenses is probably a small fraction of the total cost of
| deploying the software in most cases.
|
| More generally, orgs that are running "Enterprise" software
| are already set up to pay for software. Going from spending
| $X to spending $X+Y is often not a big deal ("Ok, I'll run
| that through the same process I used to get approval for
| buying FooSoftWorks"), while going from $0 to $Y can be
| very hard ("I don't even know who I'd need to ask to get
| purchase approval for that").
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > Going from spending $X to spending $X+Y is often not a
| big deal
|
| Except when $Y == $1000X. Then it really _is_ a big deal.
|
| When you only have a tiny minority of RHEL hosts that you
| have full support contracts on, and an overwhelming
| majority of CentOS hosts that you administer in-house, it
| really isn't trivial.
|
| It's almost certainly cheaper to migrate to Oracle or
| Rocky. Migrations aren't cheap either.
| arbitrage wrote:
| they didn't have this when they announced the death of centos.
| this is what they scrambled to come up with when they realized
| how much of an "oops" move messing with centos really was.
|
| as a peace offering to prevent mindshare from fleeing the
| redhat ecosystem, i am underwhelmed. i don't think that redhat
| really realizes yet how cheesed off this made a lot of people.
|
| being shrewish about money is one thing; we can deal with that
| (see: oracle, IBM). it's really the complete unpredictability
| and how arrogantly hamfisted this centos debacle was. I can put
| up with a lot of shit in my job, but what i especially don't
| like or need is more unreliable unpredictable shit.
| chasil wrote:
| Oh, I think they know at this point.
|
| https://devops.com/centos-rebellion-against-red-hat-gains-
| mo...
|
| https://www.infoworld.com/article/3601202/red-hats-crime-
| aga...
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/centos-linux-is-
| gone...
| pinewurst wrote:
| It's easy enough to suggest "just use Rocky" but Rocky doesn't
| exist beyond a collective promise. What about production now,
| or in the next few months?
| awill wrote:
| Agreed. But Rocky is supposed to launch before CentOS 8 is
| EOL. There should be time to wait and migrate.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > What about production now, or in the next few months?
|
| Pay for RHEL, use CentOS 7, or switch to Ubuntu.
| merlinscholz wrote:
| Even though it sounds bad, Oracle Linux works surprisingly
| well
| alexhutcheson wrote:
| This page has some interesting details:
| https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
| type0 wrote:
| It's not just that it sounds bad, you'd have to be
| willing to sell your soul to the devil.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| As I remarked to a RH employee when the CentOS 8
| discontinuation came out - do you have any idea how much
| trust you have to burn that people are considering
| _Oracle_ as the good option?
| smnrchrds wrote:
| RH would have minded. IBM doesn't. They may even take
| being compared to Oracle as a compliment.
| rescbr wrote:
| I have heard my share of "at least we aren't Oracle"
| while I was at IBM :)
| smnrchrds wrote:
| That reminds me of Animal Farm.
| brnt wrote:
| Whats wrong with Centos Stream?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Or scrap all three and start using *BSD.
| MindTooth wrote:
| This seems more and more to be the reality we are moving
| towards. Been dabbling with FreeBSD lately and it just
| works. Also, ports are updated or new submitted quite
| often making it feel less out of date.
| conductor wrote:
| There is also AlmaLinux [0], expected to be available in Q1
| 2021.
|
| [0] https://almalinux.org/
| macksd wrote:
| I believe CentOS images are still available and supported as
| much as they were before through the rest of this year, fwiw.
| dralley wrote:
| (RH Employee)
|
| > First, they should have announced this when they killed
| CentOS.
|
| I agree.
|
| >Second, this is only of value to the teeny tiny companies and
| individual users with a single server in their home. Small
| companies with any expectation of growth should probably just
| use Rocky instead from the get go.
|
| Without saying too much - stay tuned for further announcements.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > Without saying too much - stay tuned for further
| announcements.
|
| It's a horrible way to treat users.
|
| They aren't paying customers, so whatever for RH short-term
| bottom line. But amount of community backslash approach like
| that is bringing can have negative long term impact.
|
| RH pulled the rug from under the people, and is telling them
| to stay tuned. I wouldn't base my infra on a system like
| that.
|
| But that's good for overall Linux community - RH has way too
| much power there.
| arbitrage wrote:
| yeah, stop playing games, redhat? just say what you're going
| to say already. i have no idea why you're trying to focus so
| hard on building mindshare, building a mystery around it like
| you're a sarah mclachlan tribute band, but you already blew
| it. go back to what you're good at, please.
| lucideer wrote:
| I understand as an RH employee you're likely not in a
| position to make decisions about what you can disclose when,
| but... (I'm sure you're aware) your first answer contradicts
| your second.
| dralley wrote:
| There's no contradiction, only an acknowledgement that (in
| my personal opinion) the piecemeal way these plans are
| being announced is understandably frustrating, but that
| they are legitimately serious about making RHEL easier to
| use across a spectrum of use cases (which the official post
| is pretty clear about).
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| It's worse than frustrating, it's damaging for Red Hat.
|
| It doesn't matter much to me anymore, I've already
| migrated my small business internal server that was
| running Centos 7 to Debian. We had basically just a
| fileserver, FTP box, and a couple VMs for some time
| clock, wiki, and building security systems, so nothing we
| were running yet was CentOS specific.
|
| But in case it can be useful to you, please share with
| your team that the writing they're putting on the wall
| looks pretty bad. Knowing I'd have to update eventually,
| I just took the safe option, _which is no longer any
| distro controlled by Red Hat._ I didn 't want to leave
| our server in a state where we could be building
| dependencies on a platform that was likely to be pulled
| out from under us, and while RHEL isn't too expensive to
| just buy for one server, and we might have qualified for
| something free or something you've not yet announced, my
| test was surprisingly painless and the migration was
| easier than I anticipated.
| chasil wrote:
| Red Hat was not expecting the reaction to killing CentOS.
|
| The need to expand the developer program into production
| seats could not have been anticipated.
|
| I don't know of any other vendor that wraps developer
| accounts into production licenses.
|
| Notice that this access is in no way promised to the end of
| support for RHEL 8.
|
| I will say again, Red Hat has terminated two major Linux
| platforms over the last two decades - the original Red Hat
| Linux, which was terminated at v9, and now CentOS.
|
| Oracle has "somewhat" terminated a Linux platform, Oracle
| Linux for SPARC, which was only supported for two minor
| releases. Oracle Linux for ARM64 and AMD64/x86 seem
| reasonably healthy.
|
| There is other baggage in and between these corporations, but
| the track record on Linux OS platforms between these two is
| demonstrably different.
|
| The free converters between them should be used fluidly.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > The need to expand the developer program into production
| seats could not have been anticipated.
|
| I don't follow. Are you suggesting that RH actually didn't
| realize that people were running CentOS at scale in
| production?
| chasil wrote:
| I see the decision to convert to CentOS stream as driven
| by two motivations, cost containment, and facilitating
| outside contributions by pushing CentOS towards Fedora
| (and away from RHEL stability).
|
| I might be misreading these motivations.
|
| With this management perspective, the CentOS community
| reaction to the retraction of the end of life date, and
| potential reduction in stability, was likely not
| anticipated.
| BossingAround wrote:
| > pushing CentOS towards Fedora (and away from RHEL
| stability)
|
| CentOS streams is literally RHEL with fixed major version
| and rolling minor versions. So, in the past, you got
| CentOS 7.1, then 7.2, etc., with streams, you get CentOS
| 8.x.
|
| Saying that this is moving away from RHEL stability
| sounds highly disingenuous. Are you saying you've seen
| RHEL 7.X to break as opposed to 7.(X-1) version, and your
| solution was to wait for RHEL 7.(X+1)?
| chasil wrote:
| Is a "preview" as stable as the base release?
|
| Are we not reading this correctly? If not, could you get
| Red Hat's CTO to retract this [mis]information?
|
| 'Another official part of it is, as [Chris] Wright
| [RedHat CTO] said, is that CentOS Stream as a "rolling
| preview" of what's next in RHEL, both in terms of kernels
| and features can be used in today's containerized, cloud-
| native IT world.'
|
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-red-hat-dumped-centos-
| for-...
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > CentOS streams is literally RHEL with fixed major
| version and rolling minor versions. So, in the past, you
| got CentOS 7.1, then 7.2, etc., with streams, you get
| CentOS 8.x.
|
| > Saying that this is moving away from RHEL stability
| sounds highly disingenuous.
|
| If it were so great, they'd do the same for paying
| customers. That they don't move RHEL to being just 8.X
| makes me think that Red Hat does in fact understand that
| that undermines the stability of the platform.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _Red Hat was not expecting the reaction to killing CentOS._
|
| It's funny how everyone still says Red Hat when we mean
| IBM.
| barryrandall wrote:
| Scientific Linux (sponsored by Fermilab) is a CentOS-like
| rebuild of RedHat Enterprise Linux and might also be worth a
| look. https://scientificlinux.org/
| alexhutcheson wrote:
| Fermilab discontinued work on Scientific Linux in 2019 in
| favor of using CentOS:
| https://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=SCIENTIFIC-
| LINUX...
|
| It's possible they could choose to restart work on Scientific
| Linux, but nothing has been announced yet.
| tux1968 wrote:
| Honestly these seem like pretty generous and useful offerings. I
| appreciate the commitment they make to not use them as a sales
| channel as well. Will be interesting to see what else is offered
| in the coming February announcement.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| It's generous as long as you ignore the fact that CentOS used
| to cover all of these usecases without any restrictions on what
| you could use it for or how many servers you could use it on,
| for free, with no licensing or registration.
| tux1968 wrote:
| But since we aren't entitled to any free product at all, it
| seems unkind to criticize someone for not giving as much for
| free as they once did. It's still generous, even if
| previously it was more so.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| We are as entitled to it as we are to the Linux kernel on
| which it's based.
|
| That's the cost of building a product on GPL2 licensed
| software.
|
| The CentOS project itself wasn't started by Red Hat. It was
| given to them with the expectation that they would be good
| stewards of it. In killing its core mission, they haven't
| been.
|
| EDIT: Clarify sentence.
| tux1968 wrote:
| > We are as entitled to it as we are to the Linux kernel
| on which it's based.
|
| Are you claiming they are in violation of the GPL
| license? I believe they still are 100% in compliance.
|
| > The CentOS project itself wasn't started by Red Hat. It
| was given to them with the expectation that they would be
| good stewards of it. They haven't.
|
| They stepped in to stewardship of the product quite
| naturally, with the full backing of the previous
| stewards. Nobody was forced into that agreement. It
| wasn't given to them as a gift, Red Hat has sponsored the
| project for the last 6+ years. The fact that you disagree
| with the direction it has since gone, does not mean it's
| wrong. It may be the difference between having something
| more modest, and having nothing at all.
|
| And if you want something closer to the original CentOS
| check out:
|
| https://rockylinux.org/
|
| Which was created by the CentOS founder.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| > Are you claiming they are in violation of the GPL
| license?
|
| I'm not, they are indeed compliant, and Red Hat is not
| obligated to directly maintain CentOS. They are only
| obligated to provide the source to customers under the
| terms of the GPL.
|
| However, if Red Hat no longer wants to maintain CentOS in
| the spirit in which it was founded and taken over, I'd
| argue the ethical thing to do would be to spin the
| project back out of Red Hat.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > But since we aren't entitled to any free product at all,
| it seems unkind to criticize someone for not giving as much
| for free as they once did.
|
| Like... sorta? On the other hand, they went on the record
| saying that they would support CentOS 8 through 2029 [0],
| so I think it's reasonable to be unhappy with them for
| going back on that even in the absence of a monetary
| relationship.
|
| [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki
| .cent...
| tux1968 wrote:
| Yes, I can understand being upset about it, but think
| such anger should be tempered by no fee being paid and no
| contractual obligation being breeched. It seems to me if
| you're in a situation where you truly depend on such a
| commitment, you should be paying for a contract with
| someone, not hoping for the best. Had Red Hat not been
| supporting CentOS for over 6 years, it may have fallen
| apart even sooner. Who knows.
|
| So while this is disruptive and bound to be upsetting,
| Red Hat are still being quite generous with their new
| offerings. And as far as I know, they are not standing in
| the way of CentOS replacements such as Rocky[0] or
| Lenix[1].
|
| [0] https://rockylinux.org/ [1]
| https://www.projectlenix.org/
| tpetry wrote:
| That is an interesting move. But with more and more organizations
| moving to dockerized services the real servers operating system
| is no longer that relevant. I do know that rhel provides free
| access to a subset of rhel packages for docker image building but
| so many packages are missing that you can't reslly use it.
|
| So next step for rhel, allowing dockerized rhel images would be
| nice. That is a real hurting point you created by your centos
| change!
| dralley wrote:
| That's already a thing
| https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/introducing-red-hat-universal...
| geerlingguy wrote:
| As someone who started testing things with UBI images, I have
| found them to not be that great in terms of predicting how
| things behave installed under CentOS or RHEL. There are a lot
| of seemingly minor packaging differences that cause annoying
| issues when you go to deploy the same stuff on a real RHEL
| box.
| tpetry wrote:
| And as i said the rhel images for docker and supported
| packages in the registry is very very limited, you will miss
| a lot of packages.
| strzibny wrote:
| As a formal Red Hat packager, I am quite happy to see this
| change. Before I could not use RHEL to run my side project, but
| now I can!
|
| Also 16 is actually not a small number, people with Kubernetes
| orchestration sometimes forget how much you can run on a single
| machine :).
|
| I am even considering adding and marketing RHEL for my book[0]
| since the difference is just the registration.
|
| Speaking of which, if you use Vagrant, have a look at vagrant-
| registration. It can register your box automatically (I am the
| original author).
|
| [0] https://deploymentfromscratch.com/
| kodah wrote:
| The weird thing here is the consistent recommendation of
| corporate backed distributions. Debian has existed for quite some
| time without any need for a corporation. Are there problems? Yes,
| but Debian isn't going to suddenly announce that it's going to
| kill itself either. I would suggest getting involved in the
| Debian community (without trying to take it over), and making
| meaningful contributions.
|
| If you don't like Debian, pick an open source distribution that
| is not backed by a business and begin sending the money you
| would've dumped into subscriptions as donations.
| symlinkk wrote:
| Cmon, drop the requirement to activate it with an account
| already, what year is this? No one is going to use this over
| Ubuntu, even if it is free, if there's that extra step in there.
| tw04 wrote:
| I think they will come to regret this move in the long run. With
| Amazon signing up to sponsor rocky linux, it's only a matter of
| time before the user base moves there vs. dealing with all the
| headaches of "free" RHEL.
|
| Especially given that they won't make any commitments to long
| term availability beyond "we have no intent".
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/centos-is-gone-but-r...
|
| >We have no intent to end this program and we've set it up to be
| sustainable
|
| https://rockylinux.org/
| kodah wrote:
| 16 servers in a data center is probably a medium sized
| business, if not a larger small business that does zero
| virtualization. 16 servers in the cloud that are rightly sized
| sounds incredibly small.
|
| I can't imagine this will sell many people much less attract
| former CentOS users. Given the fact that they've changed course
| so quickly on CentOS stream I can't imagine there's much good
| user faith to go around.
|
| To me, this was much bigger than just a shot in the foot.
| tpetry wrote:
| How does rhel count these ,,up to 16 systems"? So if i am using
| 16 physical servers with at least two virtual vmware vms on each
| machine.
|
| Is that setup still 16 systems or do they count the number of
| virtual machines?
| strzibny wrote:
| No, I think they count every virtual machine/container.
|
| Btw. I did not check, it's possible it's based on number of
| CPUs or smth.
| strzibny wrote:
| Ok, I apologize, I wasn't sure about containers. It seems you
| don't count containers per se, but they have to run a base
| RHEL system.
| bassman9000 wrote:
| If still you need to login to access repos, same stuff.
| isuckatcoding wrote:
| What is RHEL?
| technofiend wrote:
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux. RHEL is a stable platform for
| businesses to run their apps on; they port upstream code fixes
| to their kernel and distribution and offer support for a price.
|
| Now that Centos and RHEL will no longer be in lockstep, some
| people are looking for alternatives. The upgrade from 1 RHEL
| license to 16 is a way for Red Hat to try and retain small
| projects and let home labbers and evangelists legally replace
| Centos rather than switch.
| scarmig wrote:
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
|
| For context, CentOS was a popular Linux distro that tracked
| RHEL, being mostly identical except for not requiring a support
| package. Red Hat stopped supporting it, which put a lot of its
| users in a bind. This is intended to replace it.
| strzibny wrote:
| I love this change. Will probably run things on RHEL now.
| type0 wrote:
| Why not CentOS Stream?
| strzibny wrote:
| I will start with CentOS Stream, but might actually switch to
| RHEL later.
|
| I don't really have a good rationale hah, but I was working
| for Red Hat and it could be cool to finally run my side
| project on RHEL.
| beck5 wrote:
| As a bit of a self taught sysadmin who only touches Ubuntu/Debian
| based systems due there ubiquity, could someone explain the
| benefits of using RHEL?
| tene wrote:
| The big difference to me is that Red Hat family distros have
| been a lot better suited to managing a large fleet of servers
| that I want to treat as cattle, not pets. I've finally managed
| to get away from Debian derivatives a few years back, but here
| are some specific complaints I can remember from my last job,
| managing about 1k Ubuntu servers.
|
| - Installing a package on RH is always non-interactive. To
| install packages reliably on Ubuntu, we had to set three
| separate "Please just install the package, don't try to ask
| questions" options for different layers of the stack, and still
| occasionally ran into buggy packages that would hang the
| installation waiting for a nonexistent user to type something.
|
| - On RH, when I try to install or upgrade an RPM that's missing
| dependencies, it gives me an error and refuses to break my
| system unless I specify --force. With debian, there's no way to
| query "Are the dependencies for this .deb satisfied" that I
| could ever find, and "dpkg -i foo.deb" will instead leave it
| "half-installed", and your package database is broken until you
| manually fix it.
|
| - I really missed an equivalent of `rpm -V` (list files in an
| installed RPM that have been modified since installation).
| Asking Google now, I see that there's `debsums` which can
| handle some of this; I don't recall whether I failed to find
| that before, or if there was some other reason I didn't use it
| at the time.
|
| - On RH, automated installation with kickstart is fantastic and
| comprehensive. It's well-documented, and has just worked for
| every configuration I've thrown at it. Debian's preseed is
| severely under-documented, and many combinations of features
| are just unimplemented and silently didn't work. For example,
| you can reserve unallocated disk space from a raw partition,
| but that's ignored for LVM, so to keep space free for snapshots
| in my volume group, I had to configure a "delete_me" volume,
| and then later delete it.
|
| - Red Hat's SELinux support is fantastic. Ubuntu's choice of
| apparmor and deficient SELinux support has been annoying.
|
| - I've personally found Red Hat's packages to be higher-
| quality. The biggest defect I remember finding in Ubuntu's
| repos was a service whose init script was literally copied from
| Red Hat, which didn't work, as it tried to source a file of
| init script utility functions which doesn't exist on Ubuntu,
| among other issues.
|
| - Red Hat's documentation is fantastic. Ubuntu's documentation
| is, uh... sometimes present.
|
| - I've found building RPMs to be much simpler and much-better-
| documented than the process of building debian packages. I
| vaguely remember being repeatedly frustrated at debian
| packaging that felt like "this magic thing just interferes and
| does special stuff when this case is detected", vs RPM's "it
| just does what the spec file says to do", but I can't remember
| any details or examples.
|
| - I've had a much easier time building yum repositories than
| building debian repositories. Just dump a bunch of RPMs in a
| directory, run createrepo, serve over HTTP. I failed to find
| something similarly-simple for apt repos.
|
| - Red Hat family had systemd way earlier, and with way better
| support and integration, than Debian family. While I do agree
| that there are some implementation issues with systemd, it's
| been a huge usability and quality-of-life improvement for me
| professionally.
|
| To me, Debian has always felt like it's designed for someone
| administering a small number of long-lived pets with a variety
| of special circumstances, which really isn't what I want
| professionally. Red Hat has felt like it's engineered for use-
| cases I care about.
| xuhu wrote:
| I think you can use apt install ./file.deb instead of dpkg -i
| file.deb, in order to check and install dependencies.
| tw04 wrote:
| Enterprise support. Most enterprise hardware and software
| vendors don't have Ubuntu or Debian as a supported OS.
|
| Additionally the length of support, Ubuntu LTS gets close but
| RHEL will sell you support FOREVER.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| > Additionally the length of support, Ubuntu LTS gets close
| but RHEL will sell you support FOREVER.
|
| A question is whether that is truly positive. A long cycle
| means that each update becomes a project in itself disrupting
| whatever else you are doing. (After 10 years so many things
| changed everywhere, that you need to bring so many things
| together ...) With frequent updates it is part of the ongoing
| process.
|
| (And yes, there are cases for which one can make an argument)
| NDizzle wrote:
| The main benefit for me was that systems I stood up in 2011
| received security updates until last month.
| sound1 wrote:
| I am not a linux guy but had the same question and found out by
| googling a bit that it was because of software support. Major
| Linux vendors support only enterprise distros (like Redhat,
| CentOS and Suse)
| vbezhenar wrote:
| 1. SELinux. It's configured for all packages in RHEL
| distribution and it works. It's an additional layer of defense
| and think that's the most important denominator from other
| Linux distributions. I saw recent Ubuntu distributions shipped
| with AppArmor, but I'm not sure that it's as good.
|
| 2. First-class support for systemd. Well, I'm not sure that's a
| fair point.. But with Debian I'm always seeing some messages
| about sysv scripts, even when I'm using systemctl. It feels
| like some scripts were not fully ported to systemd or something
| like that. Some people don't like systemd, but I, personally,
| think that it's a good solution. AFAIK systemd development is
| sponsored by Redhat and its support is very good, all services
| are shipped with proper systemd units.
|
| 3. First-class support for NetworkManager, Firewalld. I think
| that those packages are available for Debian, but it's nice to
| have them installed and configured from the start, they're very
| convenient to use.
|
| 4. Documentation. Most of that documentation is hidden behind
| loginwall, but http://access.redhat.com/ contains plenty of
| information.
|
| There are some drawbacks of RHEL. The major one for me is
| limited software selection. You need to enable EPEL even for
| some basic software like Strongswan, Certbot or OpenDKIM. And
| EPEL is not RHEL (although it's quite good).
| strzibny wrote:
| I second all of that.
|
| For anyone who might be interested in Fedora-family, namely
| systemd, SELinux, and firewalld bits I am writing a book now
| about deploying with Fedora and CentOS Stream[0] and I am
| almost finished. With this announcement I might add RHEL
| support directly - the difference is just in running a
| subscription manager.
|
| Also, if you are using Vagrant, you can use RHEL with a
| vagrant-registration plugin that automatically subscribe you
| (disclaimer: I made the plugin when working for Red Hat and
| packaging Vagrant for Fedora).
|
| [0] https://deploymentfromscratch.com/
| xorcist wrote:
| Support for enterprise-type products.
|
| Last workplace had a storage array. Tested on Red Hat,
| supported on Red Hat. The same is true for lots of other
| things. Enterprise databases, drivers for hardware, CAD
| software, that sort of stuff.
|
| Once you have it in place, you are guaranteed not to have to
| change it a decade. All security fixes is backported. They also
| vet upstream changes to minimize nasty surprises. You do pay
| handsomely for the privilege.
| guenthert wrote:
| Other then what has been already mentioned (chiefly commercial
| 3rd party software support), I enjoyed the set-up time. Now
| there are better provisioning methods, particularly when
| setting up hundreds of hosts, but when doing it naively for a
| single or few hosts using the interactive installation
| software, I preferred RedHat/CentOS. That got me to a booting
| system in some ten, fifteen minutes, while the dreaded
| installation in Debian used to take easily 1.5h. Once
| installed, I found Debian easier to maintain and upgrade in
| place, but initial installation was a time-sink for many years.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| To also comment here: _every_ red hat system boots from
| dracut. There 's no separate PXE for netboot: provisioning is
| consistent whether your boot medium is local, LAN, or
| ephemeral. It ships netboot-capable out of the box, and this
| is huge.
| ralphc wrote:
| Don't know if this is still true but Oracle only had installs
| for the RHEL/CentOS family, which of course included Oracle
| Linux.
| toyg wrote:
| Last i checked (2 years ago), when it comes to linux, Oracle
| Database officially supported only RHEL and OEL. I don't
| think CentOS ever made it to the various support matrices,
| although of course its close compatibility with RHEL meant it
| likely worked just fine.
| xenophonf wrote:
| A ton of compliance stuff is already done for me if I use RHEL.
| For example:
|
| https://nvd.nist.gov/ncp/checklist/811
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| in my experience, systems such as _Debian_ and _Gentoo_ for
| servers have an entirely different market than _RHEL_ , _z /OS_
| or _SUSE_ : the former seems to be more so used by i.t.
| companies themselves that of course also need to run an i.t.
| infrastructure, and the latter more so by companies whose
| primary services are not i.t., but that need such
| infrastructure nonetheless.
|
| Looking at Red Hat's customer list, most of them are based in
| finance, transportation, retail, hotel, and other such sectors.
|
| Looking at _Debian_ 's statistics of use per sector, the
| plurality is companies that develop computer software, though
| retail comes second, but after that it's i.t. again.
|
| This is primarily the difference and the gap that _RHEL_
| attempts to bridge through it 's extensive inclusive support,
| which is what one is really paying for. The target of _RHEL_
| has never been i.t. companies.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| RHEL documentation is second-to-none. It's akin to old UNIX
| documentation, or the pre-10 offerings from Microsoft.
|
| As an example, I wanted to set up kerberos. Red Hat had a guide
| on setting up IdM, covering every step in the process, often
| with two alternates depending on desired final state and having
| an intro paragraph to choose between them, full command line
| docs for every command ran, steps to test this was ran
| correctly, and troubleshooting steps for commonly-encountered
| errors. In contrast, the Ubuntu docs for setting up a IdM
| client were a wiki, half of which was for the old version, and
| a detailed stackoverflow response. Server and client setups
| took the same amount of time; the client should have been much
| faster.
| garbagecoder wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not running anything with some weird contingent license
| if I'm running Linux. Completely defeats the purpose. Also, now
| more than ever, after last month's big hacks I think building
| things from source makes more sense. I'll be sticking with gentoo
| for my mission-critical bare metal installs when I need Linux.
| symlinkk wrote:
| I would not trust the community of volunteers that maintain
| Gentoo in their free time for anything mission critical. I
| would use Ubuntu or Red Hat, which are backed by companies.
| nisa wrote:
| I've got bad news for you - most of Ubuntu is repackaged
| Debian which is from a community of volunteers that maintains
| the packages. Besides that Ubuntu used to be sloppy in
| backporting important patches and doing some NIH here and
| there... not sure about Redhat but they source heavily from
| Fedora which is also community-based.
| strzibny wrote:
| Red Hat sponsors Fedora big time. I was part of the
| packagers team for Ruby. Next to us were sitting Perl guys
| (you would never believe how many Perl packages are still
| there...!) and somewhere else folks doing Python packaging.
|
| Source: Formal Red Hat packager working on Fedora.
| symlinkk wrote:
| It doesn't matter that Ubuntu packages originally came from
| Debian. At the end of the day, Canonical employees are
| being paid to make sure they are up to date. I trust that
| over a bunch of volunteers who do it out of the goodness of
| their heart.
| akerl_ wrote:
| I'm not sure I can agree with this concern. All Linux
| distros work by repackaging upstream code, the majority of
| which is written by volunteers. For Debian, they're
| repackaging directly from upstream. Ubuntu repackages from
| Debian.
|
| The value of going through a company is that you can choose
| to write a check to Canonical or RedHat and say "I'm
| hitting this issue with the software you repackaged, here
| is money, fix the problem". There's no similarly direct
| pay-to-win for Fedora or Debian. You can shop around for a
| consultancy or engineer and pay them to try to debug the
| issue, but they're always going to be coming in as a 3rd
| party, which has an impact on the levers they can pull to
| resolve an issue.
| nisa wrote:
| It's not a concern but just an observation that things in
| universe in Ubuntu get rarely if at all backports. It's
| okay. I agree about having a company especially regarding
| timely security updates.
| jamiesonbecker wrote:
| > You can shop around for a consultancy or engineer and
| pay them to try to debug the issue, but they're always
| going to be coming in as a 3rd party
|
| Except for software that was written in-house or the
| packaging itself, RH or Canonical would _also_ always be
| coming in as a third party.
|
| ... whereas your consultant might be the original author
| of the upstream code.
| symlinkk wrote:
| Most Linux software is written by Red Hat. GNOME,
| Wayland, and systemd are all Red Hat projects. They are
| even a major contributor to the kernel itself.
| [deleted]
| jamiesonbecker wrote:
| > Most Linux software is written by Red Hat.. _even_ a
| major contributor to the kernel itself.
|
| Oh! I didn't realize Red Hat had hired RMS. :-/
|
| Setting aside the controversial nature of those three
| specific projects (and the fact that this statement is
| demonstrably false), this statement demeans the
| contributions of thousands of coders, even from before
| Linux existed.
|
| (let alone before Red Hat was a gleam on Bob Young's
| head.)
| sigzero wrote:
| You just described just about every OS that isn't Microsoft
| of Apple. Good luck with that attitude.
| pjmlp wrote:
| That just shows a lack of knowledge of the quantinty of
| commercial OSes available out there.
|
| Were are the volunteers for Sony and Nintendo console OSes,
| Android, ChromeOS, Fuchsia, IBM i, IBM z/OS, INTEGRITY,
| QNX,Unisys ClearPath, Solaris, HP-UX, Aix, vxWorks.....?
| doanerock wrote:
| Shit you have time to compile everything from source. What is
| this a air gapped laptop?
| naranha wrote:
| Hey, I like that I can play around with RHEL without too much of
| a hassle.
|
| Nevertheless for me that is not a replacement for what CentOS
| was: easy to deploy for small or personal projects without
| requiring registration/sign-up and you could leave it (mostly)
| alone for 10 years or so. Though for now I'm fairly happy with
| CentOS Stream, we'll see where it goes.
| zokier wrote:
| How about no-cost _no-registration_ self-support RHEL for
| _unlimited number_ of systems?
| ognarb wrote:
| Someone need to pay for a service, not everything is free as in
| beer.
| merlinscholz wrote:
| What would be the service on this case? Redhat already is
| open source and is being compiled anyways.
| mrweasel wrote:
| So grab the source and compile it yourself.
|
| What RedHat provides is an enormous development effort and
| an extremely long lived LTS platform. That doesn't come for
| free.
|
| Many seem to want RHEL for free, but there are free
| alternatives. You can run: Debian, Ubuntu or Slackware, if
| the cost is such a huge issue.
|
| I won't argue that RedHat has handled the change to CentOS
| in a good way, they clearly haven't. On the other hand I
| don't free sorry for those companies how want all the
| benefits provided by RedHat, but not pay to keeping RedHat
| in business. Open source isn't about free, it's about
| giving you the option to make changes to the code yourself,
| or pay others to do it for you. RedHat would like to get
| paid for their work, if you don't want to do that, that's
| fine to, but then you need to do the work yourself.
| zokier wrote:
| There has been a freely downloadable Red Hat available
| for the past 20 years, either in the form of CentOS, or
| before it good old classic Red Hat Linux. That got them
| this far, where they are now. So you can understand how
| people feel bit miffed, especially now that they have Big
| Blue backing them they should be financially more stable
| than before.
| mrweasel wrote:
| I can certainly understand people being "miffed", but
| that was a risk when choosing to base your infrastructure
| on RedHat. Again the handling was extremely poor. Had
| they announced this new program along with the changes to
| CentOS, I don't think as many would have been upset.
|
| But gambling that a for profit company will always
| provide you with a free alternative to they commercial
| offering is a calculated risk. In this case it might not
| have paid of.
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean although this sounds like an absolutely outlandish ask
| for a company this was very literally what we had with CentOS
| so I'm surprised at all the comments saying it's impossible.
| ziml77 wrote:
| After their killing of CentOS, I hope anyone who reasonably can
| avoids RHEL. I'm positive they're going to change policies again
| in the future and fuck over people who decided to go with this
| zero monetary cost RHEL offering.
|
| > When we announced our intent to transition to CentOS Stream, we
| did so with a plan to create new programs to address use cases
| traditionally served by CentOS Linux.
|
| This is a load of bullshit. If that was their plan they would
| have announced both of these changes together. It's not like they
| were under time pressure to get the announcement out.
| dralley wrote:
| >This is a load of bullshit. If that was their plan they would
| have announced both of these changes together. It's not like
| they were under time pressure to get the announcement out.
|
| I work for Red Hat, opinions are my own, etc. I don't know why
| they decided to announce the CentOS plans before announcing at
| least some of the expanded RHEL offerings, and many people are
| just as confused as myself. However, whatever the reason was,
| it's absolutely true that expanding access to no-cost and low-
| cost RHEL was always the plan, and the original announcement
| effectively stated as much.
| freedomben wrote:
| You've obviously made the choice to hate, but for anyone else
| reading this comment, the CentOS announcement specifically
| mentioned at the time that an announcement like this was coming
| regarding expanded RHEL options. Not sure what more evidence is
| needed that it _was_ the plan. If you 're a conspiracy person
| go look at archive.org's version. If you believe archive.org is
| in on the conspiracy, well, I'm not sure what to tell you.
| syshum wrote:
| Not the OP, and I have no doubt they had plans to "expand"
| RHEL options
|
| I also have no doubts they wanted to see how much bad PR the
| announcment made before figuring out that those expanded
| options where
|
| It was from be beginning a Monetary Grab, Redhat did a global
| scream test to see how much they would have to give away to
| take the screams down to a dull roar and stop the bleeding
| just enough to not lose any market share
|
| They have landed on 16 as the magic number for now, but like
| the OP I have visions of Darth Vader saying "I am altering
| the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." while wearing a
| RedHat
|
| It does not fill me with confidence that I should make use of
| that 16 server license...
| abfan1127 wrote:
| As someone not running these small to medium sized businesses,
| this is an honest question. I quickly looked at the pricing for
| RHEL. It didn't seem outlandish. Can anyone comment on this?
| protomyth wrote:
| Its really not especially compared to Microsoft or even IBM
| itself. My problem has been really crappy ability of Red Hat to
| answer any questions and the general friction of the purchase.
|
| They seem to have some company blindness about answering
| specific technical pre-sale questions with "I will have X call
| you." and that call never ever comes. So the next person calls
| you and you ask again and the cycle repeats.
|
| They are another company that likes you to go through partners
| and some of their partners aren't exactly quick about it.
| k3oni wrote:
| Until they change their minds in a few months/years. I really
| wish they would just go 100% paid and stop pretending they care
| about anything free at this point. RH isn't the company that it
| once was anymore.
|
| Edit: I'm sure this is not a popular opinion but it is what it
| is.
| dralley wrote:
| >I really wish they would just go 100% paid and stop pretending
| they care about anything open/free at this point.
|
| As a Red Hat employee for ~5 years, every line of code I've
| ever written professionally has been open source and licensed
| under the GPL. The same is generally true across the entire
| company (with the exception of contributions to external
| projects licensed Apache / MIT / BSD).
|
| Can you explain what you mean by "open/free"? Perhaps "free
| beer" rather than "freedom"?
| stonogo wrote:
| Licensed under the GPL is one thing -- intentionally
| obfuscated to make actual compilation difficult is compatible
| in letter but not in spirit of the license. Red Hat's
| citizenship in the FLOSS community varies from "savior" to
| "nuisance" depending on the project...
| nix23 wrote:
| True, then Oracle made his own UEK...and now on OL you can
| choose between two Kernels....good job RH.
| nix23 wrote:
| >Can you explain what you mean by "open/free"? Perhaps "free
| beer" rather than "freedom"?
|
| You installed 16 systems and a half year later RH says, and
| in 1 year you have to pay for these or change to CentOS
| Stream, i think it's a very founded consideration after the
| CentOS debacle.
|
| But not sure what he means that RH does not care about
| Opensource...
| k3oni wrote:
| That was more a nod to the whole CentOS debacle and the way
| RH is doing business the last few years, plus this article
| relating to the free part. Not really related to opensource
| as i doubt they'll be able to escape that aspect, if they
| could they would have probably done that already as well.
| nix23 wrote:
| To be honest it broke my heart a bit when they where sold
| to IBM. But hey there is SLES and in my opinion a much
| better option with the free tumbleweed, leap and the paid
| SLES and all the free services like OBS, openQA and
| Kiwi....and no i don't use BTRF...XFS all the way down ;)
| But if i have the freedom to choose the solution it
| nearly always choose is FreeBSD, one exception...OracleDB
| where i use OracleLinux.
| [deleted]
| type0 wrote:
| Percent-wise I don't think there is any other company that
| contributes as much to open source software, I do think it was
| a dick move from them but let's not conflate the things.
| k3oni wrote:
| My comment wasn't really related to opensource, but in
| general to their new way of doing business. Nothing wrong
| with changing the company's direction and trying to go full
| profit mode, just don't try to pretend everything's the same
| as before.
| type0 wrote:
| The change in company culture is probably real. Just an
| anecdata but I feel like over the years radhatters are
| behaving more and more corporatish compared with how it was
| years ago, then again that can be just the "climate" of the
| Internet nowadays.
| jitendrac wrote:
| If a developer gets a hold of a RHEL copy[legally] regardless of
| its subscriptions terms, he have all the rights to re-distribute
| it due to the nature of GPL2 licensing, only thing is he cannot
| claim to be IP/copyright owner of redhat assets like logo.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| Red Hat has provided free RHEL downloads and licences for
| development use through their developer programme for nearly
| five years now. They do require that you sign up for an account
| on their website.
|
| https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/03/31/no-cost-rhel-d...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-20 23:01 UTC)