CentOS dropped because it “was not [..] providing [..] usefulness to Red Hat”
itprotoday.com
itprotoday.com
RedHat flat out made a pinky promise that CentOS 8 would be supported with security updates until 2029: https://archive.is/7Qmtw I installed CentOS 8 on my home network (a non-trivial task) with the understanding things would still be secure in 2029. RedHat broke their pinky promise: CentOS 8 will no longer be supported after 2021. That in mind, while I have been using RedHat since the dot-com days, I am now a Ubuntu user.
Breaking a promise like this is non-trivial, and I have stopped using RedHat as a result. If RedHat had said “We’re not going to release CentOS 8” or if they had said from the beginning “CentOS 8 will only be supported until the end of 2021”, I would be singing a very different tune right now.
To me, Debian sounds like it should be hands down the de facto standard for production environments. It's rock solid, and it sets the bar on reliability.
RedHat had a year to remove the statement that CentOS was supported until 2029, and could had protected the page so only admins could edit it if vandalism was, in fact, an issue.
Like many other pieces of upstream open source software, they're no longer (financially / logistically able to) provide that free testing work to RedHat.
I'm guessing RedHat will be "deeply moved" if their actions create a mass developer exodus.
Embrace
>CentOS itself was not actually providing that much usefulness to Red Hat
Extinguish
Of which the majority were / are RedHat employees so not really independent at all
The old notice: https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
New blog: https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/reasons-for-switching-centos-...
New repo conversion script, works with CentOS 8: https://github.com/oracle/centos2ol
Free updates available indefinitely. For those who desire paid support, there are several (yearly) price tiers ($119; $499; $1,199; $1,399; $2,299).
There are certain organisations whose prior behaviour precludes "hope" from a reasonable set of expectations. Whether or not Oracle is included is left as an exercise to the reader.
Oracle asked them for license count and a core count of their environment. Newer IT guy sent them all of that info, asked for pricing for upgrades to a few newer Dell systems.
Oracle thought they were only using about 3/4 of the machines / cores / licenses they were billing them for, and promptly demanded the hospital group pay for the rest of their usage, as far back as they could prove. Lawyers got involved fast.
My work finished before it was resolved so I never got an exact answer but IIRC they paid something extra to Oracle.
I don't see the problem, other than the hospital not keeping tabs on what they'd installed.
Oracle Linux is very different from other Oracle products (e.g. database, ERP systems) in that there are quite low levels of lock-in / switching costs. "Embrace and extinguish" works best for products with high switching costs, which isn't Linux.
If you are particularly worried about this, just avoid using any of the features Oracle added to RHEL, like DTrace or Btrfs. Just stick to the RHCK (Red Hat Compatible Kernel) instead of UEK (Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel).
They changed things just enough that you can't just drop in RHEL and expect drivers, performance, and other kernel-level stuff to be the same. Now I understand why, it was to better support their database. But it was frustrating to deal with unless you were going all in with them and planned to pay them for systems that needed support.
Has this changed?
Oracle Linux 6 includes two kernels - the RHCK (Red Hat Compatible Kernel), and the UEK (Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel). Which one were you using?
I think Oracle only commits to userland compatibility with RHEL, but perhaps not kernel drivers under either distribution kernel.
See Java as an example. OpenJDK (and IBM/RHEL, ironically) is the only thing keeping that from turning into a bigger support trash fire.
First, Oracle's RHCK worked properly with the ZFS source code when I wrote this, and I'm assuming that it was built for Red Hat:
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/zfs-linux
Second, it would likely be possible to run the CentOS kernel on Oracle Linux. My research for Btrfs ran the other way, but I was able to get both the latest Fedora and Oracle UEK kernels working on CentOS with various levels of Btrfs support.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/btrfs-centos-living-loo...
I don't think it's necessary to use an Oracle-supplied kernel package on Oracle linux; kernel packages from other distributions would likely work.
It is already extinguished, it is done.
Why on earth not announce the free RHEL offering now. Or wait until those details are ready to deprecate CentOS 8.
It sounds like some CentOS users might be able to migrate to some free version of RHEL, but it's unclear how restricted that free version will be. Probably good for home users, but how about medium or large businesses? And then, why should anyone even use a restricted RHEL when Rocky will be full RHEL for free.
I imagine it's IBM leadership that decided this one.
"It's unclear how restricted that free version will be"
Probably not directly restricted. Just restricted in the sense that it won't be an LTS type distribution that matches RHEL's LTS product, package versions, etc. That was the value prop for CentOS.
All the kerfuffle just made me move to macos. Now I'm looking to move back...
Sounds like a great opportunity for Ubuntu and SuSE to pick up market share as the CentOS replacement.
Compared to Ubuntu, it tends to be more conservative and better tested on server or workstation hardware. What finally drove me away from Ubuntu was a very painful episode when the SAS driver would freeze randomly about 4 times out of 10 when loading. It is also far less opinionated than Canonical regarding which desktop you should use. The main drawback is that OpenSUSE Leap is supported for 2 years, so no equivalent to Ubuntu’s LTS releases.
OpenSUSE also uses systemd, but this should not be a shock for someone coming from Red Hat. It works decently with nVidia’s proprietary driver. Well, as decently as this garbage can run, anyway. I haven’t tested Wayland, as AFAIK XFCE still requires X.
This is IBM signaling that the good-ole' days are in the past. If you want to run RH stuff, they will get their pound of flesh. If you're not paying, you are not something they're concerned with.
When the corporate tone projected externally changes, that usually signals more than just a product change.
1. Red Hat was no longer the "go to" platform for anything
2. IBM was absolutely desperate
So if that's the case, what's the difference between a free RHEL without a commercial support contract/license and CentOS other than Red Hat not having to maintain those IP-related changes for CentOS?
The alternative scenario that most people seem to be assuming, where there will be no free RHEL or RHEL-like OS, seems impossible to me as somebody somewhere will just recompile RHEL source and release it under a new name just like CentOS did before. And of course Red Hat knows this.
The difference is that a free RHEL without support doesn't exist, while CentOS does.
You can get RHEL for free through various developer focused programs, but that is most certainly not the same as having an unencumbered ISO available for unlimited downloads with no EULA or sign-in requirement.
But economically speaking, it's cheaper for Red Hat to not pointlessly rebrand their own product. CentOS as a Red Hat-owned brand is stupid.
My comment was focused on the confusion/exasperation at why people keep implying this is no problem, because we can just use RHEL for free, as that is not true.
I don't disagree with the sentiment that RHEL also controlling the free alternative doesn't make sense. I do disagree with repeated assertions that people can just use RHEL for free - for the most part, they can't.
Ie. CentOS takes those users who won't pay, RH takes those who will, RH controls both and there's no niche for anyone else.
Evidently I was wrong.
So it seems to be quite a reasonable decision.
Through I'm also not a user of either of them so I might have missed some important differences between them.
This is kind of obvious. When RH bought CentOS, everybody was saying "They will kill it". But they didn't and said, "See? We are nice folks!" The problem is they got bought themselves and can't be nice folks anymore.
IMO CentOS was kind of a bait to get people into the tent, and then if they needed help once using it across all of their infra they would eventually have to migrate to RHEL w/ enterprise support.
Also what confuses me here, is that they claim CentOS Stream is going to be the cutting-edge distro for RHEL... however Fedora already serves that purpose.
It would be much simpler for them to provide a version of Redhat that could be run without subscriptions and some way for it to convert to Subscriptions.
"Oh you want support? You want this extra server management software? Let's talk."
By saying it was “not useful” to them, they really have an extremely limited and short-sighted definition of “useful”.
It really should not have been such a huge extra effort to keep CentOS around in its previous form. RH is already building the packages for RHEL, and CentOS could almost be a side-effect of that process.
There is still CentOS Stream. Which as far as I can tell is meant to have that purpose.
>>> a restricted free version of RHEL that will be announced sometime before the end of June
Hopefully the restrictions are sane and appropriate. E.g. unlimited uses/installs, with full access to repos.
Many developers were brilliant, and it wasn't uncommon to hear that they took the role with Red Hat earning substantially less then their previous roles so they could have 20-50% work time dedicated to their open source project. Also Red Hat would be fairly flexible and many worked offsite, so were able to have a cheaper cost of living.
Many times these open source project wasn't even part of the RHEL / paid offerings, however it was obvious that management liked having a team of brilliant engineers on the book to throw at troubleshooting serious issues. When the largest customers would have a serious ongoing problem, they would often demand these engineers, who would often be thrown in a room with engineers from all the other vendors to "Fix It".
I wonder if these people are going to start to leave and need to be retained at higher salaries. If this would then cause a loss of talent that will affect the ability to support those highest value customers. If this ends up costing Red Hat more in the long run.
Yes. But there would be an up-front investment in effort and a slow start, as there was with CentOS itself. The people who started up CentOS and maintained it pre-RedHat will mostly be off doing other things (possibly within RedHat) so that particular source of experience is not likely to be available at all. You'd need to find enough people who are the right combination of interested enough, capable enough on the technical side, have access to enough hosting resource for it to be practical as a public project, and willing to do it for free (unless you can attract some sponsorship or other funding).
Edit: as others said in replies while I was typing the above: it looks like a group has already started working on this, so you might be in luck.
I’m asking because I get the feeling that there isn’t much overlap between CentOS users and paying Redhat customers.
Where that isn't a concern though, it will push devs over to Ubuntu (the only other Linux flavor I've seen around here) probably, and quickly the friction in government against non-Red Hat Linux flavors will drop. As an example of that friction, last I looked Red Hat published themselves guides and scripts to get CentOS stig'ed to the level we need here, while neither Ubuntu nor anyone else had automated it.
Now that that way of working is essentially dead, I have no reason to recommend or use RHEL in any capacity.
Also, the most dependable docker images are Debian based, Google distroless image is Debian based, most single board computer's OS are Debian based, Tails, Kali, Ubuntu, all Debian based and the list goes on and on.
It's the most mature and stable disto out there and is reference in the Linux world for more than 27 years.
EDIT: ...and is more up-to-date than CentOS, I just checked and CentOS seems to be using an old/non-LTS kernel :/
If a community project itself stopped providing what it has been providing for free, people would probably be disappointed if they had started relying on what was provided. They might also become wary of relying on community-supported projects. But they would probably not be upset in the sense of being angry. Most people wouldn't feel entitled enough for that.
I think what makes people upset in this case is that Red Hat sort of adopted the project, giving it a home, and then stopping to provide what that project had been providing for people outside of Red Hat.
I was suggested to try Oracle Linux, but I will always trust more Redhat than Oracle..
Acquiring a competitor and shutting it down is standard SV business as usual. Just took a bit longer this time.
Long term: Amazon develops a new Distro unbeholden to RedHat/IBM. Only a matter of time.
So, I'm sure that many customers who have been using CentOS just because it existed have no problems upgrading to RHEL because it's such a small part of their budget that it doesn't matter.
Meanwhile, CentOS did serve a purpose and those who absolutely don't want to upgrade to RHEL or are looking to start out without a subscription will be looking at other providers such as Project Lenix or Rocky Linux.
I think this could have been handled better by IBM. They've made a complete mess out of this by introducing CentOS stream and dropping CentOS. There is value in keeping non-paying users in your own ecosystem. Canonical handles it pretty well.
if the company doesn't want to, or thinks that it can't tolerate that risk over whatever the difference between near & long is, they'll cut the liability loose.
to me, this hints at instability in the market and IT sector, which, c'mon, we already know about. so it's likely more of an admission that times are tough, and RHEL/IBM is looking out for themselves.
CentOS was acquired as a marketing tool to sell support contracts.
RedHat was acquired by IBM because selling support contracts no longer works as an open source software business model. It was a rescue operation (on both sides), really.
In a twisted way, it's a success story for OSS. The software is so good and its main users so competent that the support contract has moved from being the value to the value-add. (aside)
Unfortunately, this is the same thing driving the adoption of all of these new split licenses, which I don't think is a positive direction.
(aside): This is actually the second demonstration of this. The first was when Rackspace got rid of its world-class support organization in a race to compete on costs.