CentOS Linux to CentOS Stream discussion

Chat
139

Hi Marc,

From the article from your link.

Funny the way they “mention” their sources, they don’t realy admit they take a lot from CentOS…

It is also relatively easy for us. We have already built a fully functional fork of RHEL 8. We have a team of experts who maintain it every day and are getting paid for it. We can reuse about 95% of that.

Funnier is:

We tried to join the RockyLinux effort, but at some point, we realized that it would not work at this stage. We already have a build environment that works, and we have been improving it for a decade. By the time I got in touch with RockyLinux, they already had plans for their build environment - one that would be very different from ours.

I’ll play with you as long as you use my bat and my ball…

Michel-André

140

CentOS 8 EOL Dec 2021: it was an important decision and widely unpopular.

I don’t feel that article and others like that are just for damage control. I think the decision and the history behind it is actually more complex than a neat 100% percentage. Any attempt to explain that complexity is good.

Interesting point of view over the Rocky Linux initiative in “Question 9”.

3 Likes
141

The only reason why i used CentOS is Nethserver! Always Debian.

3 Likes
142

@stojovski

Debian: Almost always a good basic choice…
But NethServer is a good, valid reason for an exception to the rule! :slight_smile:

I also use Debian a lot, not only underneath my Proxmox…

My 2 cents
Andy

2 Likes
143

That is what i said. CentOS only because of Nethserver which is great.

1 Like
144

CentOS was never supported or maintained by RH, RH takes care of Fedora … and RH :stuck_out_tongue:

CentOS is an independent team, french if I recall, that offers a binary compatible distro. with RH, by pulling the all the available src-rpm and recompiling them, so to not violate licenses by distributing a renamed binary …

145

@gpunk

Hi Remi

Red Hat bought Centos in 2013, so the last 7 years, RedHat has been supporting AND maintaining Centos.
That’s why they could “shut it down”…

My 2 cents
Andy

146

Sorry I cannot read all the posts, but from what I understand, the word Debian has been pronounced :slight_smile:

Yes I used to worship Debian for X and Y reason, but I kinda of changed my mind,
The issue I found with Debian (more than 20 years of usage) is dpkg/apt, after all this time, Debian team is still not that far from a sectarian mentality, ultra-conservative,
They still refuse to implement downgrades, one of their excuse is: You Can Do It Your Self/Manually … well LoL!, what are computer languages made for ? I can type “Hello word” a thousand times, yes I can, but a smart guy would throw at me a simple bash/shell loop for that ! isn’t magical ?
This is like a doctor telling you not to breath because it makes you suffer to breath !
The other reason is … oh it is too complicated to implement …
Well sorry, RPM team seams like they have a lot of time to spare for this kind of evolution,
CentOS/RH/Fedora has DNF for a little while now, and it is a life saver for admins .

I believe Pacman has that option too, but well Pacman is usually for rolling distros … which I think makes it an even a bigger challenge, which has been accepted and fulfilled .

Voilà :slight_smile:

1 Like
147

Where do you read that ?

Wikipedia says in 2014 many CentOS guys got Hired by RH, but I don’t see where it is mentioned about CentOS belonging to RH,

It wouldn’t make sens to me, to by a clone of your product …

148

@gpunk

Salut Remi!

It’s a very well known fact:

ici:

ou ici:

In 2014, the CentOS development team still had a distribution with far more marketshare than resources. So when Red Hat offered to partner with the CentOS team in production of the distribution, the deal looked good to both sides. Red Hat gained control of an entity it saw as coloring the reputation of its own brand, and CentOS developers got Red Hat jobs allowing them to work on CentOS full time while still keeping the lights on.

Part of the deal involved a new governance board for CentOS—one with a mandatory, permanent Red Hat majority. Although the new deal was marketed as a partnership, it was an acquisition in all but name—Red Hat now both funded and controlled CentOS.

And it’s also one of the easiest ways to eliminate a competition (If seen as such…).
Just wave with the greenbacks (Another term for Dollars!)…

And going back on your promise of 10 years support - after one year - does not make any community trust you!

My 2 cents
Andy

149

I see redhat is destroying CentOS, but to go back to my point:

## 8. What is CentOS's relationship with Red Hat®, Inc. or RHEL?

Red Hat curates the trademarks for CentOS and is providing initial guidance and expertise required in establishing the formal board structure used to govern the CentOS Project.

Some members on the CentOS Project Governing Board work for Red Hat, Inc.

CentOS Linux is NOT supported in any way by Red Hat®, Inc.

CentOS Linux is NOT Red Hat® Linux, it is NOT Fedora™ Linux. It is NOT Red Hat® Enterprise Linux. It is NOT RHEL. CentOS Linux does NOT contain Red Hat® Linux, Fedora™, or Red Hat® Enterprise Linux.

CentOS Linux is **NOT** a clone of Red Hat® Enterprise Linux.

CentOS Linux is built from publicly available source code provided by Red Hat®, Inc for Red Hat® Enterprise Linux in a completely different (CentOS Project maintained) build system.

As you see point 2: They don’t says “Some members of the board, has been Hired by RH” they says “Do work for RH” as if it was always the case .
Point 3 is what I say.

And I just saw on Whois.org, CentOS.org belongs NOW to RH …
FYI, many know already, another ““CentOS” spiritually equivalent” is in the pipes to overcome this catastrophe :wink:

150

@gpunk

Yes, there another few who want to try to repeat history…

We musn’t forget: Before RedHat started financing them, Centos already had BIG issues getting out releases, the team was dwindling and motivation was low…

Since RedHat took over, it worked, and quite good, yes.

But RedHat can anytime “pull the plug”, make things difficult for others (a few QOS rules on the download firewall…). An, let’s be serious: The 1 million$ / year that CloudLinux want’s to put in is actually peanuts. Same goes for RockyLinux, I have no idea about their finances - or burn rate…

All of these clones depend on Redhat and aim to be a 1:1 clone from the Source.

If RedHat pulls the plug, or delay it enough, this won’t work. And besides Oracle, none of the others have any ressources to do any actual development of the OS.

Besides which, I’ve been using Debian for more than 25 years now. Never had any issues. True, they also had issues back at the turn of the century, but since then, the quality of Debian has gone up a lot.

Same goes for FreeBSD. Both are fairly current.
Wheras RHEL / Centos always felt like a software collection from some old, outdated distro.
Yes, I know RedHat does security backporting - but let’s face it PHP5x is way to old nowadays…
And that’s only ONE software package…

And don’t forget, Debian has been around even longer than Redhat - by maybe 5 years!

My 2 cents
Andy

151

Yes this was one of the argument of almalinux vs rockylinux, they have already a team paid to work, volunteering might have some issues for the long term.

I met the Centos team at the fosdem 2015 when they have been hired by RHEL, I can testify they were more than happy.

1 Like
152

They Cannot pull The Plug,

The GPL Licenses ARE very Clear, They have no right to Not Allow the download of the sources of the GPL’ed packages,

Hence, If fedora/RH wants to stay Alive (their turn now to have the bee-gees) they’ll Have to leave the sources available, So

To have a binary compatible distro. with RH/Fedora will always be possible.

Remember that RH exists because the Linux kernel, the GNU software base + gLibc etc wich are GPL,
So if RedHat violates THAT, they will be outOfbusiness/InCourt, or they’ll have to create their Own Kernel + libraries and software,

Can you imagine a company recreating from scratch: Kernel + libs and a web-server ?

They will be dead on the next business day :wink:

Why ? It took decades to have all this, you think anyone can deliver you all this in a spawn of 6 months ? even if it does … how many bugs and security breaches will be in there ? software maturity it is called :slight_smile:

Look at M$ for example, it is older than GNU/Linux, and yet until today, they are the king-of-the-hill if you count the bugs and security breaches they carry on ALL the time, many know that Win10 still suffers from bugs and security breaches that dates from Win2000 ! :wink:

So as “Stan Peed” says in Carmageddon: “I fell confident” :slight_smile:

153

Nobody is arguing to the contrary, but it takes time and money. The questions are:

  • Who has the time, money, and inclination to produce a binary-compatible distro with RHEL8/9/10;
  • What assurance can we have that they’ll continue to do so; and
  • What assurance can we have that they’ll continue to make it freely available?
3 Likes
154

Let me rephrase your sentence.

intended as obscure code source, you’re right, they can’t

intended as no funding the developers or continuing developing patches or changing tasks to their own developers to do during job hours to develop anything but something related to CentOS… hell they can. Also creating RHEL whizbang version source is not the same thing that verify, compiling, testing, QA assuring and matching packages of CentOS.

And believe me, the second seems much more “pull the plug” than the first one.

155

@gpunk

You CAN make the sources available.
Yet you can also put in a simple firewall with QOS, and slight “Interruptions” during times other distros are “getting” the sources…

Not an outright block, but a continuing jab in the sides…

See ithings this way:

If someone hacks your PC, and encrypts all data on your server: You’re aware of that fact right away, can grab your Backup and initiate a restore…
However, if an attacker only does small “attacks”, each time changing the every third 7 to a 3, by the time you realize this, your bookkeeping will be just so much junk-data… And you’ll have overrolled your backup, so no restore possible…

My 2 cents
Andy

1 Like
156

Someone will, always can, It could be me ?!

CentOS “existed”, why couldn’t “it” “exist” again ?

Impossible, and hard are not the same :slight_smile:

157

That is not the point either,

“Pulling” the “plug” is impossible, because making it hard is just a workaround,

as said, they are stuck with OUR gift (We the contributors of OSS/GPL) , GPL software, they dig in it to make paychecks, they have to ‘put it’ back in the pool of software from which they pulled it.

It is the principle of GPL .

:slight_smile:

158

@gpunk

Until 2013 you’re right: it existed…

After 2013, it started living…

Just existing, is NOT enough…

My 2 cents
Andy