They are both new. So, this may be a one time thing due to tooling changes or whatever. Too early to jump to conclusions.
ver Alm Rocky
8.4 8 34
8.5 3 6
8.6 2 6
9.0 9 58
One of them is being done by a team that's been shipping another Linux distribution for a decade and has the whole process streamlined and automated. The other started by loud release announcements, creating Slack groups and marketing materials, only then going for solving the technical stuff. I think I've made my choice pretty much right then and there.
Seeing how Rocky guys behaved towards the community (like their refusal to go to a popular Linux podcast unless the host was willing to forego any comparisons with other Linux distributions), and these release delays proved that.
But you're right, they're both RHEL clones, so it's only worth differentiating based on externalities. Rocky is backed by industry veterans and part of the 9.0 delay was so they could dogfood Peridot. Alma is backed by a web company who spent the majority of the past couple years Valley-washing their Russian origins. A while back I watched their CEO beg their executive team to cut ties with Russian media sites. Rockey had a community governance model first, they had a distro-dedicated SecureBoot solution first (Alma 'borrowed' CloudLinux's), and so forth. If your metric is 'get package releases to my AWS fleet first' then Alma is winning. For all the rest of the provisioning and longevity issues, Rocky is the winner. It's all a matter of priorities.
As a user of CentOS looking for a replacement, Alma and Rocky should be 100% identical. The _only_ difference is delay after RHEL launches.
There is a Red Hat BZ issue here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017069
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-abi-compatibility
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel9-abi-compatibility
This would be closer to a bug-for-bug compatibility issue, as a result of an implementation change on the infra side of things. It's not due to the OS which is bug-for-bug compatible with its origin, RHEL 8.
While it would be nice if EL7 stacks are considered by the rebuild distributions, it's not a requirement and they are free to use features supported by the platforms they're building.
Hum, that's a subjective view of the history of "CentOS" told by Greg Kurtzer...
In practical terms, Greg just helped setup the legal structure around the distribution that Rocky McGough created.
In the 20 years history of CentOS, Greg Kurtzer stayed 2 years at the beginning, doing mainly PR/legal/community stuff, then left when Lance Davis inherited the ownership of the project after Rocky committed suicide.
I'm not sure anyone is calling Greg a "CentOS founding member" except himself, everywhere.
https://blog.centos.org/2019/03/greg-kurtzer-centos-founder/
For what it's worth, The Register refers to Greg as a CentOS founder in their first Rocky article:
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/rocky_linux
If you have some references to back your assertions, I would very much like to see them. You're not the first person I've seen assert that Greg shouldn't be called a founder of CentOS, but I've yet to see that backed up.
Also, you seem to minimize the non-technical, especially legal, work around setting up and maintaining a distribution, but I don't understand why. In terms of legal work, trademarks need to be registered, non-profits need to be set up to fund critical items like build infrastructure, and more. Each of these seems like exceptionally valuable, if not critical, to the success of a distribution.
Why are you not considering PR/legal/community stuff as being worthy?
Thanks.
Was the issue on the project copyright, or was it the copyright in the source files?
While I have some experience in open source and copyright, I'm certainly no expert nor do I claim to be. Luckily I have people I can rely on for advice and guidance (e.g. back then, it was probably LBL/UCOP's Tech Transfer), but sometimes things still get mucked up.
Sorry if there was a miscommunication or an error on my part back then.
Heck, that's the very stuff nobody wants to take care of, kudos to him he wanted to spend his time on these.
He got it because after he suggested the name (CentOS) and I approved it and it was then accepted by the others, he promised to hand over the domain name which he was squatting on to the Caos Foundation (a 501(c)3).
Jump forward, Lance and the Centos web team had Red Hat trademark violations on the centos.org website and they alienated Red Hat's legal team enough for them to come after me personally. I believed in Red Hat and we needed to correct our actions, so I reached out to Lance and the web team to rectify the situation. My requests were ignored as they didn't care that they were doing a disservice to Red Hat. I forced the situation as much as I could, which was purely political as the Caos Foundation didn't have access or control over the domain. After the PNALV fiasco, matters got worse, and Lance was able to control the project because he retained controlled the domain.
This was how Lance inherited the ownership of the project, well over a year after Rocky passed away. It was a matter of board manipulation (he convinced the Caos Foundation board that it was okay for him to own the domain). Note, he continued being a bad actor even afterwords when he went AWOL and was pocketing donations personally when the developers had to write him a public open letter to hand over the domain.
What I said is not my subjective view of history, it is corroborated fact which was never challenged or questioned until I founded Rocky Linux.
The right question to ask now... Why are some people spreading rumors trying to rewrite history and slander me (and thus Rocky).
Nobody here or anywhere is trying to slander Rocky, or yourself. And everything I said (or others said) cannot be called a "rumor". Everything said is factually correct, there is just a disagreement on the interpretation of these facts.
I will be honest with you, every time I read something where you claim to be a "founder of CentOS", it irritates me, for a number of reasons.
1/ CentOS was not created in a short time. Ideas, source code and history were spread and shared over multiple years and from multiple projects, I tend to consider that "founders" are "recognized as", not "claimed to be". Yet you are very loud about shouting everywhere your "founder" status to promote your Linux distribution. All in all, this status of yours is the sole selling point of Rocky Linux.
2/ There is, IMHO, a difference between "being there during the foundation" and "being a founder". I value the work you did with Caos, but to me being there in 2002 does not make you a "founder".
3/ There is a meaning in the status of founder, it implies some legacy on the future success of the project. Bill gates is a legitimate founder of MSFT because even though he's not there anymore, he did put the company on a track for what it is today.
I do not agree that you have a legacy claim on CentOS' future success. You were let go of the org after 2 years (I know you see it as the board having been "manipulated" by Lance).
TLDR: I do not contest your contribution to CentOS in the early days. But I think calling yourself a "founder" is misleading, and is a borderline dishonest attempt at reaping the success of an org that earned 99% of its respect long after you were let go.
Did you even read what you wrote? The entire thing is slanderous and based on rumors and you have provided ZERO facts or citations. Others have even pointed you to some links, and if you were really curious, the facts are easily found, go look before you post inaccurate information and perpetuate rumors.
Another thing, I don't appreciate being attacked anonymously when all I'm trying to do is help the community by filling a much needed pain point.
> Everything said is factually correct, there is just a disagreement on the interpretation of these facts.
Actually, what you said is not factually correct and you've provided zero proof. Justify your allegation that me being a founder of CentOS is subjective or you just look like a hater and a troll.
> 1/ CentOS was not created in a short time. Ideas, source code and history were spread and shared over multiple years and from multiple projects, I tend to consider that "founders" are "recognized as", not "claimed to be". Yet you are very loud about shouting everywhere your "founder" status to promote your Linux distribution.
First off, CentOS was absolutely founded in a short time. It's all clearly documented on the Caos email list and easily corroborated by archive.org, but that point is neither here nor there. I led the project from inception to the point where it was literally a household name. If you don't think my contribution was valuable, then you are entitled to that perspective.
> All in all, this status of yours is the sole selling point of Rocky Linux.
Nope, wrong, I never said that and I don't like anyone putting words in my mouth.
The background I have from early days of CentOS is entirely valid and what we did was amazing, but there were of course things we could have done better. Based on this experience, myself and the team leads/board were able to make decisions for the betterment of the project and recapitulate what CentOS did right, and reevaluate what could have been done better.
The Rocky team has done remarkably amazing to bring Rocky Linux out to the community and our growth demonstrates we solved a major pain point for the community. To marginalize all of that because my role with CentOS "irritates" you is just childish.
> 2/ There is, IMHO, a difference between "being there during the foundation" and "being a founder". I value the work you did with Caos, but to me being there in 2002 does not make you a "founder".
That point is accurate, there were a lot of people who were "there during the foundation", and that doesn't make them "founders".
I created the Caos Foundation, I incorporated it, managed it, converted it to a 501(c)3 which then became the origin of CentOS.
Red Hat EOLed the freely available RHL and pivoted it to RHEL thus adversely affecting many people in the Linux and open source community. We (Rocky, Lance, Russ, and myself -- the primary CentOS Founders) decided to rebuild the sources of RHEL with Rocky taking the first stab at it with CentOS3 (which was the current version of RHEL). That was the moment of Founding CentOS. Its initial name was "Caos EL"[1] and it wasn't until a bit later did Lance suggest the name CentOS to me and I, as the project lead, approved it first, then it went to group vote. Rocky was the person who announced the name change from Caos-EL to CentOS on the Caos email list[2] along with letting the world know he was about 99% done with it (this is right before he passed away). Then I continued to lead the CentOS project for another 18'ish months.
> 3/ There is a meaning in the status of founder, it implies some legacy on the future success of the project. Bill gates is a legitimate founder of MSFT because even though he's not there anymore, he did put the company on a track for what it is today.
If you don't consider the contribution I provided the project as valuable, then sorry, but that does not delegitimize my role as a Founder.
> I do not agree that you have a legacy claim on CentOS' future success. You were let go of the org after 2 years (I know you see it as the board having been "manipulated" by Lance).
I've never, not once, tried to substantiate a claim on CentOS' long term success. You are putting words in my mouth. What the team did after me is 100% on them. Their dedication, and work, is an amazing tribute and should not be marginalized by anyone. I was there, I saw what they did and how they held the project, especially after the "CentOS Debacle" and the open letter to Lance. The team did amazing, and it has withstood an amazing set of hurdles. I have nothing but admiration for that team and I'm still friends with many of them.
Again, you are spreading missinformation and rumors. I was not "let go" from the org... CentOS, via Lance, left the Caos Foundation.
Was the board manipulated by Lance? Yes, absolutely. He convinced them that the Caos Foundation 501(c)3 did not need to own the CentOS.org domain assets which in the end was the main leverage he had to remove it out of the Caos Foundation. Couple that with the legal issues he got me into, and the Caos board agreed to let CentOS goto Lance.
> TLDR: I do not contest your contribution to CentOS in the early days. But I think calling yourself a "founder" is misleading, and is a borderline dishonest attempt at reaping the success of an org that earned 99% of its respect long after you were let go.
So you believe that it is misleading and dishonest for someone to call themselves a founder to a project which they helped to create and then go onto lead for years?
-- [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040909231416/http://www.caosit... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20040630213827/http://www.caosit...
The "several" part is false. Greg is the only one with any claim at all to the early days of CentOS. He created the Caos Foundation, which is where CentOS was started. He believes that makes him the CentOS founder, despite others disputing that claim. None of the other early CentOS folks are working on Rocky.
"The best reason we have is our speed. If we assume all RHEL clones are equal in terms of software, people tend to then weigh speed and community size/support very heavily. We get new packages out very very quickly because nearly all the rebuilds can be automated. We had PUIAS 6 out over a month before CentOS 6 came out. The same is true of minor revisions - of CentOS, SL, and PUIAS, we had a 5.8 release out first." - "IAmA Developer for the PUIAS Linux distribution - AMA"
CentOS had historically fell behind in release times, but we all of a sudden want to paint others in a bad light for being behind. Did everyone forget about CentOS 7 having average of 30 days delay behind each point release? 7.4 being the most at 43 days. What about CentOS 6.0, with 242 days?
As for their behavior, it takes two to tango. I usually like to thank carlwshill and "conan_kudo" (who should pick a better name since he thinks he's from the anime his picture is from) for being true stars in the open source community and really bringing out not only the best in others, but the best in themselves day in and day out. I'm not sure how anyone can put up with them, regardless of which community you're in (CentOS/Fedora EPEL/others), but who am I to judge, I'm just a user.
1.5 years in enterprise time is hardly any time at all. Heck, it takes that time to approve a budget in some enterprises. Yeah, time-to-release is an important metric, but software compatibility and industry support is really the magic sauce.
In my industry, we'll be using current CentOS 7 installs until EOL, and watch all derivatives with interest over the long term - given they provide anything over current RH ecosystem (RHEL, CentOS Stream, Fedora).
Most of the time I think it's fine. Mainly it hurts when there are security updates you need.
You used to be able to track the build process for CentOS when it was a RHEL clone, see how many packages were left to go as the days crawled past.
Things are a little better with the way that development happens more recently. 6 was a massive delay for distributions because RedHat had overhauled a lot around the build process and distributions needed to completely overhaul their stuff too, in ways that weren't that obvious.
Just wanted to clarify, I agree with you completely. I didn't anywhere perpetuate the unfair "it's just produce rebranded RPMs" (which is actually accurate, but trivializes the significant process involved in rebranding and rebuilding, hence IMO misleading). It's a significant amount of work. The time it takes is not unreasonable given the effort involved. That said, the amount of time was painful. I've never complained about it because I'm grateful for anything and everything they do, and I'm not complaining about it now. I'm recognizing the facts around speed of delivery, but in no way suggesting they aren't for a good reason.
This is probably because the project was initially founded by Cloud Linux, which I believe already had the expertise to do RedHat clones and basically donated the setup - whereas Rocky started from scratch from what I can tell.