Not knowing much about Linux distros, can anyone explain the popularity of CentOS to me?
I mean, having used it only a few times, my impression of CentOS is "a Linux with lots of horribly outdated software, in the name of compatibility and well-testedness". Eg when I used it last, the PHP version it shipped with was 8 years old.
Now, I understand the appeal of that to certain super risk averse enterprises who value stability over any kind of developer or user happiness (including the ability to run latests versions of userland software that happens to require somewhat recent php/python/etc versions). But aren't those exactly the kinds of enterprises that would want normal RHEL licenses anyway? If you scratch those out, what audience is left? Why would I run such ancient software for any technical reason?
I know this sounds dismissive, but I don't know how else to formulate this and I'd like to understand this. I think I understand RHEL and I think I understand Fedora, but I never got the appeal of CentOS.
I appreciate the suggestions for alternative Linux server distros, and understand people asking about such, but CentOS wasn't just another decent Linux server distro. It's status as a direct rebuild of RHEL, crucially including robust binary compatibility, gave it a unique role. Ubuntu LTS, Alpine, Debian, etc are all fine distros but there's a particular role for a very precise completely open and free RHEL clone.
Hopefully the same forces that lead to the creation of CentOS will Also lead to the establishment of a replacement project, and there are hopeful signs in that direction.
I think we all knew this was coming when IBM acquired RedHat.
Does anyone know if the licensing is permissive enough to enable Centos spin-offs? If that's possible there's a decent chance some company will jump on it and fill the void.
I've had to argue a lot of time at work on the merit of running a Debian system.
Everyone coming in has always been keen on just getting CentOS up for a server. Outside vendors also just tell me: "we need CentOS X for this", and I've never understood the reason for that.
Having run both systems, I know that Debian is much more solid.
Sometimes the argument even comes down to: "Oh but when I search online for guides, it's always RedHat/CentOS"
I personally hate Debian because of APT and the fact that it tends to do way too many things behind your back, things that sometimes backfire horrendously as soon as you stray too much from the path Debian dug (Ubuntu is the best example of how APT can self implode as soon as you start adding weird repositories and the scripts that keep Debian afloat start breaking). I've had to recover way too many Ubuntu installs to tolerate using APT any longer (in its defense, I understand it was designed by Debian, for Debian, and often Ubuntu abuses and misunderstands it), and while YUM/DNF aren't that much better, they're miles ahead APT in reliability and solidity, especially since RPM is arguably more reliable than DPKG, IMHO.
You may well say that Arch Linux and the like, compared to Debian-based distributions, basically leave you in the middle of nowhere with just a knife and a rope, but at least you know what you signed for. Relying on fancy shmancy automatic configuration systems is often a recipe for disaster, especially if you plan to stray a lot from the defaults, because it's guaranteed you won't have any idea of what's happening when everything has turned south.
For these and other reasons,I think that systems like BSDs are much, much more pleasant to use than Debian and Red Hat, but I understand why they might not be the right choice for everyone. Still, I can't but recommend everyone to give a shot at FreeBSD if your needs allow it.
The one big issue with Debian is installing a package results in the service starting immediately. On CentOS and other distros this is not the case and the user has to start the service after the installation. I prefer the latter behavior as not everything I install is going to be a 24/7 service. I'd prefer not to mask some service because stopping and disabling leads to the service randomly starting after a package upgrade.
Debian is really unique in that does not totally rely on a single corporation's largess like Fedora (Red Hat), CentOS (Red Hat), or OpenSUSE (SUSE). Being a worldwide, community-run project, it has multiple stakeholders and no single point of failure.
I disagree, Redhat is not going anywhere anytime soon. FOSS is a funny thing because people seem to get more upset about things they were handed for free than things they pay for. Why should your entire *aaS stack be composed of free software of which you make money off of? How much money did anyone reading this donate to CentOS when they were separate from Redhat? Redhat bought the CentOS team because their own community refused to support their work. Think about that...you get what you give. People are really just upset they will no longer get free Redhat (which is what CentOS is).
Why the hell do huge companies spend tons to acquire things and then kill them? This seems to happen more in computing than other industries. You don't see shipping companies buying completely functional container ships so they can park them out in the middle of the ocean and dynamite a hole in the hull and watch them go glug glug glug for the lulz.
Maybe, probably not short-term though; they still have (I guess?) tens of thousands or more active licenses, which are committed to using it because replacing it will be a lengthy and expensive project.
But these companies may start migrating. It'll take 5-10 years for that to be completed though.
CentOS impressed me so much in the years I've been using it that I wanted to grab a RHCSE and start recommending subscriptions to my clients.
After pulling the rug out from under my feet I will no longer be interested in recommending anything under the Red Hat brand. We will migrate to another solution for our internal systems and not look back.
Being out of touch from the Linux distro world, this is rather sudden.
I still run CentOS on many of my dedicated servers (now known as bare-metal) from a decade ago. While almost everything else was all custom-built anyways, I guess the lack of core updates is going to be a problem. Though, CentOS 6 was going to reach EOL soon anyways.
I hope someone resurrects Whitebox Linux. I just liked the name and that it communicates litterally same thing as the other guy but cheaper since you aren’t paying for the brand.
Might be able to pun off of “President’s Choice” = “PC” = “Personal Computer” somehow as well.
We are creating the next RHEL based Enterprise Linux - same as CentOS used to be. Targeted first release is January 31, 2021.
Looking for both volunteers or people who want to be paid for their efforts. Join us to secure Enterprise Linux as a free (as in beer and freedom) for the foreseeable future.
I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for IBM to "nudge" (force?) RedHat to roll out a new distro named Red Hat Universal Blue Linux or RHUB Linux...Just so that i can use loads of awful Dad jokes related to linux and Rube Goldberg devices. (Disclaimer: I love me some linux tons, but love me some Dad jokes even more.)
I would advise anyone who's using this as an opportunity to move on to greener pastures in terms of distributions to consider Alpine Linux: https://alpinelinux.org
SourceHut runs entirely on Alpine, as do my personal workstations. It is extremely reliable, stable, and robust; maintainable over long periods of time with minimal effort; and small and simple enough to be easily understood by everyone responsible for its use on your teams. The package repositories are somewhat small - you may have to write some packages yourself, but don't be afraid of that. It's very easy and you would be well-advised to learn how it's done if you're going to invest in any distro.
I consider Alpine Linux to be a competitive advantage for my business. CentOS and RHEL provide the illusion of stability and an executive who will weep and beg for forgiveness when it breaks, but true stability is only possible through simplicity.
While I'm interested in Alpine and will take a look at it, I think it's in a different class than CentOS. A look at the release schedule[0] suggests that major versions are supported for 2 years. In contrast, major releases of CentOS historically were supported for a stunning 10 years (until yesterdays' announcement, which moved the support window for CentOS 8 from 2029 to 2021). I've worked with companies that had been running legacy CentOS 6 boxes for over half a decade, and from my perspective the longevity was incredibly valuable for that kind of business.
Two totally different markets. RHEL (and its free clone, CentOS, rip) are for regulated industries or anyone who values extreme stability over any newness. You can turn updates on and feel as safe as you can be against known exploits while at the same time feeling as confident as you can that your stuff won’t break. Once or twice a decade, you port to a new version and then go back to not thinking about it too much.
Alpine is still linked against musl and not glibc, right? That is a rather large departure, and potentially more problematic than small package repository (usually the smaller repository, the easier it is to package your own stuff from scratch - I assume it beats rpm and deb at that).
I mostly hear Alpine in the context of either embedded systems or tiny docker images. I'm not even that worried about the server, but one of the neat things about CentOS was that I could run the same or a related (Fedora) system on my dev machine, too. So I'd be interested in reading more about your experience with it as a workstation system. Do you use this as a main development machine or "just" for testing server stuff?
[+] [-] skrebbel|5 years ago|reply
I mean, having used it only a few times, my impression of CentOS is "a Linux with lots of horribly outdated software, in the name of compatibility and well-testedness". Eg when I used it last, the PHP version it shipped with was 8 years old.
Now, I understand the appeal of that to certain super risk averse enterprises who value stability over any kind of developer or user happiness (including the ability to run latests versions of userland software that happens to require somewhat recent php/python/etc versions). But aren't those exactly the kinds of enterprises that would want normal RHEL licenses anyway? If you scratch those out, what audience is left? Why would I run such ancient software for any technical reason?
I know this sounds dismissive, but I don't know how else to formulate this and I'd like to understand this. I think I understand RHEL and I think I understand Fedora, but I never got the appeal of CentOS.
[+] [-] simonh|5 years ago|reply
Hopefully the same forces that lead to the creation of CentOS will Also lead to the establishment of a replacement project, and there are hopeful signs in that direction.
[+] [-] RMPR|5 years ago|reply
0: https://news.itsfoss.com/rocky-linux-announcement/
[+] [-] bitcharmer|5 years ago|reply
Does anyone know if the licensing is permissive enough to enable Centos spin-offs? If that's possible there's a decent chance some company will jump on it and fill the void.
[+] [-] znpy|5 years ago|reply
I honestly hope this is what's going to happen.
[+] [-] darkr|5 years ago|reply
In the same family of RHEL clone distros there is at least:
* Oracle (yuk)
* Scientific Linux (though I don't think they attempt to guarantee binary compatibility as CentOS does/did)
[+] [-] rntksi|5 years ago|reply
Everyone coming in has always been keen on just getting CentOS up for a server. Outside vendors also just tell me: "we need CentOS X for this", and I've never understood the reason for that.
Having run both systems, I know that Debian is much more solid.
Sometimes the argument even comes down to: "Oh but when I search online for guides, it's always RedHat/CentOS"
It's driving me mad sometimes.
[+] [-] qalmakka|5 years ago|reply
You may well say that Arch Linux and the like, compared to Debian-based distributions, basically leave you in the middle of nowhere with just a knife and a rope, but at least you know what you signed for. Relying on fancy shmancy automatic configuration systems is often a recipe for disaster, especially if you plan to stray a lot from the defaults, because it's guaranteed you won't have any idea of what's happening when everything has turned south.
For these and other reasons,I think that systems like BSDs are much, much more pleasant to use than Debian and Red Hat, but I understand why they might not be the right choice for everyone. Still, I can't but recommend everyone to give a shot at FreeBSD if your needs allow it.
[+] [-] broknbottle|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curt15|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] znpy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edsemail123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JayDoubleu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mootzville|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|5 years ago|reply
But these companies may start migrating. It'll take 5-10 years for that to be completed though.
[+] [-] mhd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JayDoubleu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhouston|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qz2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silentsysadmin|5 years ago|reply
CentOS impressed me so much in the years I've been using it that I wanted to grab a RHCSE and start recommending subscriptions to my clients.
After pulling the rug out from under my feet I will no longer be interested in recommending anything under the Red Hat brand. We will migrate to another solution for our internal systems and not look back.
[+] [-] asadkn|5 years ago|reply
I still run CentOS on many of my dedicated servers (now known as bare-metal) from a decade ago. While almost everything else was all custom-built anyways, I guess the lack of core updates is going to be a problem. Though, CentOS 6 was going to reach EOL soon anyways.
[+] [-] syntheticnature|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pet_Ant|5 years ago|reply
Might be able to pun off of “President’s Choice” = “PC” = “Personal Computer” somehow as well.
[+] [-] alfyboy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bem94|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedimastert|5 years ago|reply
Edit: Comment below beat me to it, nvm
[+] [-] tekmonks|5 years ago|reply
Looking for both volunteers or people who want to be paid for their efforts. Join us to secure Enterprise Linux as a free (as in beer and freedom) for the foreseeable future.
https://monkos.org
[+] [-] Foxboron|5 years ago|reply
https://web.archive.org/web/20190808223051/https://antergos....
[+] [-] mxuribe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddevault|5 years ago|reply
SourceHut runs entirely on Alpine, as do my personal workstations. It is extremely reliable, stable, and robust; maintainable over long periods of time with minimal effort; and small and simple enough to be easily understood by everyone responsible for its use on your teams. The package repositories are somewhat small - you may have to write some packages yourself, but don't be afraid of that. It's very easy and you would be well-advised to learn how it's done if you're going to invest in any distro.
I consider Alpine Linux to be a competitive advantage for my business. CentOS and RHEL provide the illusion of stability and an executive who will weep and beg for forgiveness when it breaks, but true stability is only possible through simplicity.
[+] [-] helen___keller|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Alpine_Linux:Releases
[+] [-] anonunivgrad|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kklimonda|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walrus01|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RMPR|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lovelearning|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AdmiralAsshat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] someday_somehow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] encom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ossusermivami|5 years ago|reply