Comment by nazunalika | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nazunalika | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>CentOS used to be a free rebranding of RHEL.

CentOS was a binary/functionally compatible build of RHEL without the RHEL branding.

>IBM effectively cut off CentOS.

Red Hat (not IBM) made the decision to end CentOS Linux and move their focus toward CentOS Stream.

>Rocky Linux is the replacement free RHEL-compatible distro...

Rocky Linux is one of many choices for a RHEL-compatible distribution. I would also say CentOS Stream is also a viable choice. It works well from my own personal experience.

>but is higher effort to maintain than CentOS was.

Speaking as the lead of Release Engineering, it does require quite a bit of effort to maintain Rocky Linux. It can be especially time consuming during May and November when releases are scheduled, given that it's volunteer time.

As for CIQ, who knows what they offer or what it is they are actually doing with our distribution. Is it to check a box? Probably, given the way I've seen some companies act around these sorts of things. Does it offer security improvements? Who really even knows.

> Rocky Linux is one of many choices for a RHEL-compatible distribution. I would also say CentOS Stream is also a viable choice.

One of the main value propositions of RHEL (and RHL before it) is that each distro version has a fixed ABI throughout (kernel included), making it a valid compilation target for binary-only software. Neither Stream nor even Alma are that.

Also, many software vendors don't support Centos stream.

Some very important hardware vendors don't either. Can't use GPUDirect Storage with Mellanox OFED on Centos Stream. Works fine under Rocky.

Push off if you think Alma isn't this. The differences are miniscule and basically amount to Alma's customers preferring to have some stream back ports first effectively.

If Rocky is claiming they're better their either breaking rules or lying. And if the community believes them I'm just going to walk away and talk to the business small medium and large putting their money where it matters, not in more CIQ FUD.

>One of the main value propositions of RHEL (and RHL before it) is that each distro version has a fixed ABI throughout (kernel included), making it a valid compilation target for binary-only software. Neither Stream nor even Alma are that.

Maybe for current point releases of RHEL and derivatives, building against CentOS Stream may not be that great of an idea. For example, EPEL has different build targets that build against RHEL or CentOS Stream to account for the differences between point releases such as libraries (especially qt libraries!) and also to make the transition easier for their users between point releases when running a dnf update on the next RHEL point release.

As a side tangent: In my opinion, I think vendors should be compiling software against CentOS Stream to ensure compatibility and validation for the next RHEL point release, which should work for the next point release of RHEL, Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, and even Oracle Linux. I've not seen many vendors do this, though.

With that said, the differences that AlmaLinux have should not cause incompatibilities (and if there are, I can't see them being anything more than minor issues). This means that builds on an AlmaLinux build root should allow the software to still work on the others. Any of the distributions in the family should be fine as build targets.

> Red Hat (not IBM) made the decision to end CentOS Linux and move their focus toward CentOS Stream.

The fact is that Red Hat killed centos a little after it was acquired by IBM. Who decided this is not something that we'll learn (or even care anyway).

It’s unthinkable that RedHat killed CentOS without the OK from IBM.

Hey just want to take the opportunity to say thanks for your efforts with releng. I'm always pleasantly surprised by how quick and effective you folks are with getting updates built, validated, and shipped when upstream has a release.

Looking forward to Rocky 10!

> Red Hat (not IBM) made the decision to end CentOS

I don't understand what you mean here? Wasn't Red Hat already owned by IBM when this decision was made?

The planning to swap the RHEL/CentOS relationship (i.e. CentOS Stream) long predated even the "intent to acquire" announcement from IBM, and of course the actual acquisition as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com