Question So, what's the preferred replacement for CentOS?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ultimatebob

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,135
2,445
126
I noticed that Red Hat is no longer going to be supporting CentOS as a free alternative to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and will now be using CentOS as a test branch for new RHEL releases as "CentOS Stream" instead:

www.cyberciti.biz

CentOS Linux 8 will end in 2021 and shifts focus to CentOS Stream - nixCraft

CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end in 2021. CentOS Stream continues, serving as the upstream (development) branch of RHEL 8.
www.cyberciti.biz www.cyberciti.biz

Of course, most people use CentOS as a free unsupported version of RHEL in their development and test environments. This change basically means that it can longer be used for that purpose, as it's now going to be ahead of Red Hat releases instead of being in-sync with them.

So, what do you think you're going to use as a replacement for CentOS?

Scientific Linux used to be a free compatible alternative to RHEL, but they never did a version 8 of it.

Amazon offers their own free RHEL clone called Amazon Linux, but it's not 100% compatible and is really optimized for AWS (naturally).

Oracle does a free RHEL clone called Oracle Linux, but... it's from Oracle. Eww.

I guess that I could just switch to Ubuntu, but that would pretty much require rewriting all of my installation scripts to use apt-get instead of yum. Ubuntu also keeps a lot of its configuration files in different locations, which would also make switching a pain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: damian101
Sort by date Sort by votes
M

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,498
144
106
That is how RHEL (and hence its clones) roll. All the new packages (from point update) go to the repositories, so "yum update" sees and installs them. There was effectively only one version of CentOS 6. The CentOS 6 with latest package versions installed. (A RHEL user could opt to stay at specific point update, but not CentOS user.)

Major versions were a different story. As you saw between 6 and 7, there were major differences. There has never been a functional migration procedure from one CentOS major version to another; always a fresh install. (RHEL has a migration script, but it works only for some RHEL setups.)

Overall, mastering fresh install is a Good Thing. It requires that you know how to put configuration in and that you can keep your data separate from the OS. Virtual machines are nice inspiration and practice ground for that; to be able to spawn a fully configured new VM at moments notice is rewarding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mxnerd
Upvote 0 Downvote
MikeWall

MikeWall

Banned
Feb 3, 2023
1
0
6
Thanks for the info on how RHEL and its clones work. It makes sense that all new packages go to the repo and you can simply "yum update" to install them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Fallen Kell

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,039
431
126
Well, given that it has now been a couple years, I believe the main true alternative is Rocky Linux. They are what CentOS originally was, before IBM forced Red Hat to change CentOS, and is effectively a true open source fork of RHEL (bug for bug compatible).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Red Squirrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,406
12,143
126
www.anyf.ca
Is there a way they can just go fully independent from RH? I get the original idea being CentOS and now Rocky is that it follows RH but maybe it's time to break away from that.

Also what IBM is doing is against the GPL I think, but I guess they don't really care about that. Nobody involved with the GPL would have the money and resources to actually bring IBM to court over it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lxskllr

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,428
7,615
126
The idea behind these forks is to be 100% RH aside from branding. Anything else misses the point, and you might as well use debian.

I'm not a lawyer, but the best I can make of it is the new terms are within the law. Kinda sleezy, but sleezy ≠ illegal.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,498
144
106
Red Squirrel said:
Also what IBM is doing is against the GPL I think
Click to expand...
Is it?

First, only a fraction of RHEL content is GPL; the rest have other licenses and some of those "allow more".

Even with GPL packages, Red Hat has full right to decide that they discontinue your RHEL subscription and then you will get neither patched binaries nor their sources in the future. That part is not shady.

How they would get to point where they see a need to discontinue your subscription, that is obscure. Note though that if they share to you some GPL code and a binary with EULA and you break the EULA when you redistribute the GPL code, then it is you who "breaks license" even though due to the EULA being conflicting with GPL.

Red Squirrel said:
Is there a way they can just go fully independent from RH?
Click to expand...
RH does a lot of coding that goes into RHEL (and upstream). One of their blogs mentions "thousands of paid developers". If you want a completely distinct Linux distro, then you do need a community of developers, probably like, say Debian, has. Community of thousands to independently do similar things that RH does for RHEL?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Fallen Kell

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,039
431
126
mv2devnull said:
Is it?

First, only a fraction of RHEL content is GPL; the rest have other licenses and some of those "allow more".

Even with GPL packages, Red Hat has full right to decide that they discontinue your RHEL subscription and then you will get neither patched binaries nor their sources in the future. That part is not shady.

How they would get to point where they see a need to discontinue your subscription, that is obscure. Note though that if they share to you some GPL code and a binary with EULA and you break the EULA when you redistribute the GPL code, then it is you who "breaks license" even though due to the EULA being conflicting with GPL.
Click to expand...
Except the GPL does not require you to be a RHEL subscription holder in order to receive the source code from Red Hat. The GPL specifically calls out that if you (i.e. Red Hat) want to use the GPL'ed software to copy, distribute or modify it, that Red Hat agrees to the following as spelled out in the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)


Notice that "pesky" clause in there, 3b, and also notice the specific wording, "give any third party". The "any third party" would include anyone, not just those who have a RHEL subscription. It means that someone has the right to request from Red Hat the source code for any GPL'ed software that Red Hat is copying or distributing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom