undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbayindirh1y ago0 comments

CentOS was the downstream of RHEL, and much more people used it than RedHat/IBM knew or wanted to admit. I can argue that at least 90% of their users (by the number of installs) didn't even need any help to configure/troubleshoot that either.

But with a very IBM move and with some tunnel vision, they got triggered by the few people who abuse RedHat license model and rugpulled everyone. More importantly universities, HPC/Research centers and other (mostly research) datacenters which were able to sew their own garments without effort.

Now we have Alma, which is a clone of CentOS stream, and Rocky which tries to be bug to bug compatible with RHEL. It's not a nice state.

They damaged their reputation, goodwill and most importantly the ecosystem severely just to earn some more monies, because number and monies matter more than everything else for IBM.

Remember. When you combine any company with IBM, you get IBM.

0 comments

bonzini1y ago

> they got triggered by the few people who abuse Red Hat license model and rugpulled everyone

Alma is not a clone of CentOS Stream. You can use Alma just like you were using CentOS. It's really no different than before except for who's doing the work.

I agree that communication was bad. But why do you believe that Red Hat isn't able to screw up on their own?

bayindirhOP1y ago

> Alma is not a clone of CentOS Stream.

I'll kindly disagree on this with you. Reading the blog post titled "The Future of AlmaLinux is Bright", located at [0]:

> After much discussion, the AlmaLinux OS Foundation board today has decided to drop the aim to be 1:1 with RHEL. AlmaLinux OS will instead aim to be binary compatible with RHEL.

> The most remarkable potential impact of the change is that we will no longer be held to the line of “bug-for-bug compatibility” with Red Hat, and that means that we can now accept bug fixes outside of Red Hat’s release cycle.

> We will also start asking anyone who reports bugs in AlmaLinux OS to attempt to test and replicate the problem in CentOS Stream as well, so we can focus our energy on correcting it in the right place.

So, it's just an ABI compatible derivative distro now. Not Bug to Bug compatible like old CentOS and current RockyLinux.

TL;DR: Alma Linux is not a RHEL clone. It's a derivative, mostly pulling from CentOS Stream.

> I agree that communication was bad. But why do you believe that Red Hat isn't able to screw up on their own?

Absorption and "Rebranding and Repositioning" of CentOS both done after IBM acquisition. RedHat is not a company anymore. It's a department under IBM.

Make no mistake. No hard feelings towards IBM and RedHat here. They are corporations. I'm angry to be rug-pulled because we have been affected directly.

Lastly, in the words of Bryan Cantrill:

> You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end.

[0]: https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/

bonzini1y ago

> Absorption and "Rebranding and Repositioning" of CentOS both done after IBM acquisition. RedHat is not a company anymore. It's a department under IBM.

You're wrong. CentOS Stream was announced September/October 2019, too close to the IBM announcement to be an IBM decision; it had been in the works for quite some time before, and in fact this all started in 2014 when Red Hat acquihired CentOS.

From 2014 to ~2020 you were under the impression that nothing had changed, but Red Hat had never cared about CentOS-the-free-RHEL. All that Red Hat cared about was CentOS as the basis for developing their other products (e.g. OpenStack and OpenShift), and when Red Hat came up with CentOS Stream as a better way to do that, Red Hat did not need CentOS Linux anymore.

Anyhow, I've been through that and other stuff as an employee, and I'm pretty sure Red Hat is more than able to occasionally fuck up on its own, without any need for interference from IBM.

jonathanspw1y ago

Bug for bug is a sham and always was. It's a disservice to users to only clone something.

Underneath it all, compatibility is what matters. At AlmaLinux we still target RHEL minor versions and will continue to do so. We're a clone in the sense of full compatibility but a derivative in the sense that we can do some extra things now. This is far, far better for users and also let's us actually contribute upstream and have more of a mutually beneficial relationship with RH versus just taking.

1 more reply

ghaff1y ago

Red Hat bringing CentOS in-house (well before IBM entered the picture) was IMO one of the first in a string of expedient decisions that were... unfortunate. When I was at Red Hat I loudly argued against some of the ways things were handled but I also understand why various actions were taken when they were.

I'd also argue that CentOS classic was mostly bug for bug compatible but probably close enough for most. It shared sources but did use a different (complex) build system as I understand it.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

bonzini1y ago

> they got triggered by the few people who abuse Red Hat license model and rugpulled everyone

Alma is not a clone of CentOS Stream. You can use Alma just like you were using CentOS. It's really no different than before except for who's doing the work.

I agree that communication was bad. But why do you believe that Red Hat isn't able to screw up on their own?

bayindirhOP1y ago

> Alma is not a clone of CentOS Stream.

I'll kindly disagree on this with you. Reading the blog post titled "The Future of AlmaLinux is Bright", located at [0]:

> After much discussion, the AlmaLinux OS Foundation board today has decided to drop the aim to be 1:1 with RHEL. AlmaLinux OS will instead aim to be binary compatible with RHEL.

So, it's just an ABI compatible derivative distro now. Not Bug to Bug compatible like old CentOS and current RockyLinux.

TL;DR: Alma Linux is not a RHEL clone. It's a derivative, mostly pulling from CentOS Stream.

> I agree that communication was bad. But why do you believe that Red Hat isn't able to screw up on their own?

Absorption and "Rebranding and Repositioning" of CentOS both done after IBM acquisition. RedHat is not a company anymore. It's a department under IBM.

Make no mistake. No hard feelings towards IBM and RedHat here. They are corporations. I'm angry to be rug-pulled because we have been affected directly.

Lastly, in the words of Bryan Cantrill:

> You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end.

[0]: https://almalinux.org/blog/future-of-almalinux/

bonzini1y ago

> Absorption and "Rebranding and Repositioning" of CentOS both done after IBM acquisition. RedHat is not a company anymore. It's a department under IBM.

Anyhow, I've been through that and other stuff as an employee, and I'm pretty sure Red Hat is more than able to occasionally fuck up on its own, without any need for interference from IBM.

jonathanspw1y ago

Bug for bug is a sham and always was. It's a disservice to users to only clone something.

1 more reply

ghaff1y ago

I'd also argue that CentOS classic was mostly bug for bug compatible but probably close enough for most. It shared sources but did use a different (complex) build system as I understand it.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse