It's ironic that CentOS Stream (specifically the killing of old CentOS for the sake of it) is what made Enterprise Linux sucks in the first place.
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
33 points (92.3% liked)
Linux
47940 readers
1340 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Were you building it, supporting it, or using it?
I had no idea about this, but listen to the talk, it is really informative.
Being upstream of RHEL, instead of Downstream, they have way more freedom. They can test things out, and be more like Fedora.
But yes, CI/CD means Stream will not have long supported stable point releases, but continuous fixes.
I think it is so stable that these should just work, and small updates are not as breaking as bigger ones.
Meta uses CentOS Stream extensively, and even the completely hacked together Hyperscaling version of it, being more close to Fedora server, while improving performance through a dedicated set of packages that are well maintained, selected and branched off Fedora.
CentOS Stream is still really stable. It has 5 years of support, which is not 10, but that amount of support is extreme work. Imagine backporting security fixes to a 10 year old kernel.
The normal Linux LTS kernel has 2 years of support now. CentOS is already really old in comparison.
Paying for Software is okay, and RedHat doesnt seem to waste money.
Mainly a Debian user, but have used CentOS at times. Quite informed on the happening as well.
CentOS 9 was doing quite well until Red Hat shortened its lifetime. Red Hat also called the FOSS community a bunch of "freeloaders".
I think the consensus these days is to use Alma Linux or Rocky Linux for enterprise stuff.
Speaking of stable, Debian and Ubuntu LTS easily provide 5 years support. Both Alma & Rocky picked up where CentOS 9 left off.
Yes true, Almalinux and Rockylinux make sense.
Having a continuously delivered enterprise distro sounds reasonable for me, but doesnt make sense if updates are an issue.
I found this video interesting
Updates tend to be an issue, especially when it comes to changes in application interfaces. We'll never know what would break after a major update.
This is why point release distro remains the majority in enterprise world.
Perhaps immutable distros are there to provide that continuous update while having the ability to rollback.
Very interesting. I dont think that app interfaces should break between releases? But CentOS Stream doesnt really have releases so yeah, very fair point.
You actually convinced me that it is likely completely bad for using on Servers. It is just a testing OS for upstream RHEL.
I liked a YT Video about this. CentOS Stream now is upstream of RHEL, RockyLinux and Almalinux. If one of these projects wants to fix a bug, they can implement the fix in Stream and all get the fix.
I dont think that app interfaces should break between releases?
If they have good reason, they totally should! In fact this is pretty common.
One prominent example would be how runtime files for PostgreSQL & MySQL are incompatible between major version. E.g. if you're to upgrade from postgres 11 to 12, you'll need to do migration.
A lot of command line programs change their default behaviors, deprecate options, etc. This may not be so for coreutils (cp, mv, ls, ln, et al.), but for the more actively developed programs.
In the end, it might not be complete bad to have rolling release on servers, but in most case, it's not worth the headache.
Red Hat also called the FOSS community a bunch of "freeloaders"
Is this an actual quote? Ballsy statement given that half of those freeloaders are on their payroll!