One of our clients pushed us toward AlmaLinux instead of CentOS 7. At the time, we vaguely suggested Rocky Linux, but noted we were kind of still waiting for the future (hence our suggestion of going with CentOS 7 and migrating later to the "true successor" of CentOS).<p>What is the HN community's perception of this? Is AlmaLinux a good choice? Do you believe Rocky Linux will succeed?
I don't get it. CentOS "failed" because there were not enough community resources to sustain it. Rocky Linux is founded by the CentOS founder. Why will Rocky Linux succeed where CentOS "failed"? How would Rocky Linux get resources to sustain it?
The home page[1] bends over backwards not to use the name "Red Hat", which renders the FAQ weirdly obtuse.<p>CentOS, which used to be downstream of Red Hat, has changed its strategy. Rocky Linux is looking to replace CentOS.<p>[1] <a href="https://rockylinux.org/" rel="nofollow">https://rockylinux.org/</a>
I'm responsible for fairly critical infrastructure and I've been putting all my bets on RHEL/CentOS these last 7 years.<p>So my plan is to just sit back and watch how all this develops until 2023. Use RHEL when possible, Fedora or CentOS 7. Worst case maybe CentOS Stream.<p>But there is no rush. Just sit back and let time decide which of these new contenders looks the best after 2 years.
For anyone else that was missing context, there is an about section on the wiki[0]<p>> Rocky Linux is a community enterprise Operating System designed to be 100% bug-for-bug compatible with Enterprise Linux, now that CentOS has shifted direction.<p>[0] <a href="https://wiki.rockylinux.org/" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.rockylinux.org/</a>
This looks awesome -- congrats to the team on the landmark milestone. I've been eagerly anticipating the release since their initial announcement.<p>I am left to wonder how seamless this migration will be in practice. I'm a heavy user of, for example, zfs-kmod, and would be thrilled to learn that I won't suddenly be on the hook for coordinating dkms build shenanigans across my ZoL machines.<p>Bonus points if they offer a direct upgrade path from CentOS -- although I'm not holding my breath on this one.
In terms of speed it looks as if Oracle was the first to get 8.4 of their RHEL clone out of the door, Alma Linux came second and RockyLinux is still at 8.3
I'm optimistic that they will get faster!
I understand the desire to stick with the 10yrs of updates model, but it seems outdated with how fast things evolve. I am still waiting for Redhat to bring some details on how Stream will work long term.<p>We need to know what packages will be unstable. People seem to be held up that Redhat releases will be taken from Stream, making it a "beta" of things to come instead of a free RH. I personally see this no different than Fedora > CentOS release cycle. I welcome newer features hitting our enterprise boxes sooner than later.<p>I have read that it's also not a true rolling release, and instead will have minor stop gap channel releases along the way. Unless there is another big shake up like init vs systemD, it will be excellent to have an enterprise grade rolling release option for long lived (non-cattle) servers. Updating our fleet from 5 to 6, 6 to 7 was painful...<p>Currently moved most of my Dev servers to Stream, and I am excluding a few packages from rolling with DNF-Automatic. Will this stay supported?
If I was starting "another CentOS" I would ensure that companies above a certain amount of revenue had to pay (either in licensing fees or in engineer time). Non-corporate and FOSS uses should remain free. The reason I suggest this is differences in user engagement.<p>It's hard to get community support for projects that are business-focused. A project that is very general-purpose can get quite a few volunteers or donations. But if businesses are the primary users, the project often gets little to no support from those businesses, and very infrequently any contributed code or support. Getting my own company to donate to an OSS project that they heavily depend on is like pulling teeth. Which is ridiculous, because without that project they'd be paying a lot more for proprietary software!
We run an HPC cluster on CentOS 8 and looking at moving to Rocky but I wonder if we shouldn’t just jump to Ubuntu or OpenSUSE. The main thing keeping us is that kickstart works pretty well over PXE with dnsmasq and I never found good docs for the equivalents elsewhere.
ISOs are a bare minimum of course, but what about official container images? Personally I'd like to see how it works with existing package repos that are out there.<p>EDIT: tried unofficial image and it seems you can use stuff from mirror.centos.org if you mimic Centos by modifying /etc/dnf/vars/contentdir and /etc/dnf/vars/cloudsigdist. Use --nogpgcheck if necessary.
Frankly, since my company is pushing hard for a move away from the data center, we're really not talking about moving from CentOS 7 to e.g. Rocky any more anyway; we're talking about moving from CentOS 7 to Amazon Linux 2.
This was released back at the end of April.<p><a href="https://rockylinux.org/news/rocky-linux-8-3-rc1-release/" rel="nofollow">https://rockylinux.org/news/rocky-linux-8-3-rc1-release/</a>
"Changed its strategy" is such a weird euphemism. Why does the founder of a project feel obligated to repeat the ass-covering euphemism of the corporation that fucked up his last project?