SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@pattonb said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
I do like Debian, as for most of my deployments
Debian leans more towards bleeding edge than any Linux OS that I know. That's why it is used as the base for other, more conservative releases, like Ubuntu. Debian isn't bleeding edge, in any way, but it is moreso than Ubuntu for sure as Ubuntu waits for things to stabilize on Debian before integrating into Ubuntu.
Debian is a great choice, though, but would satisfy nothing you would have been needing CentOS for in the past.
That's a bit of an odd statement Scott.
Debian has a three releases in the works at all times.
From upstream to downstream it's:
Unstable -> Testing -> Stable- Unstable is where all new development happens and all new packages are.
- Testing is a rolling release and what Ubuntu uses as their primary upstream.
- Stable is the production release.
So Debian is always bleeding edge, very stable and in between at all times - depending on what release you use.
Debian stable undergoes a longer phase of testing and debugging before being released - compared to Ubuntu. So Debian stable certainly is the most conservative of the two and arguably the more stable one.
Debian stable don't have fixed release cycle but it's usually somewhere between two to three years for each major release. Right now it's Debian 10 and the Debian project has been going for 27 years.
Debian and Ubuntu has a symbiotic relationship. Debian has a larger scope and offers things that Ubuntu does not but Ubuntu is more specialized and as such offers things that Debian does not.
-
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
That's a bit of an odd statement Scott.
Debian has a three releases in the works at all times.
From upstream to downstream it's:
Unstable -> Testing -> StableUnstable is where all new development happens and all new packages are.
Testing is a rolling release and what Ubuntu uses as their primary upstream.
Stable is the production release.So Debian is always bleeding edge, very stable and in between at all times - depending on what release you use.
Not odd whatsoever. I said that Debian leans more towards bleeding edge than Ubuntu, not that it was bleeding edge. And what I said is completely true. Ubuntu starts from Debian stable (the least bleeding edge edition of Debian) and adds additional testing and support - making it even farther from the bleeding edge that the least bleeding edge edition of Debian.
None of that is bad for Debian. Remember I also said that bleeding edge isn't the bad thing that people assume. That Ubuntu is so conservative is really a negative. Not a big negative, but a negative.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
Ubuntu starts from Debian stable
No, that's not true. Ubuntu start from Debian testing (and unstable to some degree).
You can clearly see it in the kernel version. Debian 10 (stable) is on 4.19 branch and Ubuntu 20.04 LTS is on 5.4 and Ubuntu 20.10 is on 5.8 I believe.
-
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
Ubuntu starts from Debian stable
No, that's not true. Ubuntu start from Debian testing (and unstable to some degree).
You can clearly see it in the kernel version. Debian 10 (stable) is on 4.19 branch and Ubuntu 20.04 LTS is on 5.4 and Ubuntu 20.10 is on 5.8 I believe.
I only researched so much, but what I found was that releases were based on stable. I thought kernels on Ubuntu were like CentOS to Oracle where Oracle locks to the RHEL/CentOS release, but then offers a massively more current kernel for performance and stability reasons.
-
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
Ubuntu starts from Debian stable
No, that's not true. Ubuntu start from Debian testing (and unstable to some degree).
You can clearly see it in the kernel version. Debian 10 (stable) is on 4.19 branch and Ubuntu 20.04 LTS is on 5.4 and Ubuntu 20.10 is on 5.8 I believe.
Newly installed Debian 10.8 system I setup on Friday.
jbusch@dt-jared ~]$ ssh daerma-eq Linux eq 4.19.0-14-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.171-2 (2021-01-30) x86_64 -
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
Ubuntu starts from Debian stable
No, that's not true. Ubuntu start from Debian testing (and unstable to some degree).
You can clearly see it in the kernel version. Debian 10 (stable) is on 4.19 branch and Ubuntu 20.04 LTS is on 5.4 and Ubuntu 20.10 is on 5.8 I believe.
I only researched so much, but what I found was that releases were based on stable. I thought kernels on Ubuntu were like CentOS to Oracle where Oracle locks to the RHEL/CentOS release, but then offers a massively more current kernel for performance and stability reasons.
I understand. No Ubuntu has newer packages all over and is not based on Debian stable.
It's based on unstable and testing. I don't know enough about Ubuntu so I can't say how much from each or what process they use.What you normally do on Debian if you need a newer kernel is to just run stable and install a newer kernel from the Debian Backports repository. There you have a selection of newer packages that has been backported to stable.
But Debian stable never becomes as old as RHEL/CentOS so the need for newer kernels on servers is not prevalent.
-
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
What you normally do on Debian if you need a newer kernel is to just run stable and install a newer kernel from the Debian Backports repository. There you have a selection of newer packages that has been backported to stable.
Yeah, I had to do that just last week
-
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
But Debian stable never becomes as old as RHEL/CentOS so the need for newer kernels on servers is not prevalent.
Yeah, RHEL gets so ridiculously out of date.
-
@JaredBusch said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
Ubuntu starts from Debian stable
No, that's not true. Ubuntu start from Debian testing (and unstable to some degree).
You can clearly see it in the kernel version. Debian 10 (stable) is on 4.19 branch and Ubuntu 20.04 LTS is on 5.4 and Ubuntu 20.10 is on 5.8 I believe.
Newly installed Debian 10.8 system I setup on Friday.
jbusch@dt-jared ~]$ ssh daerma-eq Linux eq 4.19.0-14-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.171-2 (2021-01-30) x86_64Yes, Debian stable normally uses the LTS release of the linux kernel.
So 4.19 was the last LTS release of 4.x
Then you had 5.4 and 5.10 is now the latest LTS release.So Debian 11 will almost certainly use the 5.10 kernel. Debian 11 has no official release date but it expected to be somewhere around summer time this year.
-
I believe Ubuntu just announced that 5.10 was coming in 21.04 as well.
-
-
@scottalanmiller I just installed Ubuntu 20.10 Desktop last night. I felt so dirty.
-
@JaredBusch said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@scottalanmiller I just installed Ubuntu 20.10 Desktop last night. I felt so dirty.
Why?
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/open-source/opensuse-leap-ready-be-new-centos
I have yet to use openSUSE as a headless server.
-
@pattonb Have you given any thought to bailing on Linux entirely? FreeBSD is pretty good and no danger of becoming proprietary. I've used for decades. And the more and more Linux goes the wrong directions, the more and more I want to free myself of it entirely. Almost there.
-
Someday I spinned OpenBSD, just to feel proud
OpenBSD - Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!
-
@gotwf FreeBSD reminded me about OpenBSD. For what purpose or services you were using FreeBSD?
Not sure what it makes not to use OpenBSD or FreeBSD as CentOS and Ubuntu, even though they are known for solid.
Is that because continuous improvements in features, security and support?
-
FreeBSD is a very nice unix-like OS. More so than the linux kernel, GNU utils and various code that linux distros cobble together.
But it's not as versatile, for instance with hardware drivers. That's the drawback of having a smaller user base.
-
@openit said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
OpenBSD - Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!
You need to read that right. Key phrase being "default install". Not to take anything away from that, but mostly we use default install as a base platform for other stuff. And therein lies the rub. True, OpenBSD does a lot more due diligence than some when it comes to packages. But FreeBSD is no slouch either.
@openit said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
@gotwf FreeBSD reminded me about OpenBSD. For what purpose or services you were using FreeBSD?
Not sure what it makes not to use OpenBSD or FreeBSD as CentOS and Ubuntu, even though they are known for solid.
Is that because continuous improvements in features, security and support?
As for OpenBSD vs FreeBSD, it is not an either or deal. I have been using OpenBSD since circa 2.5 (?) for more security sensitive applications, dns, firewalls and such. FreeBSD offers more versatility for general server use, more packages, and had the port system, wh/OpenBSD did not implement until much later. FBSD also has ZFS. For those interested in on the metal file systems, I guess I should mention DragonflyBSD and hammerfs. But who other than cloud providers are running anything on the metal server side these days?
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: IBM Is Killing Off CentOS:
FreeBSD is a very nice unix-like OS. More so than the linux kernel, GNU utils and various code that linux distros cobble together.
But it's not as versatile, for instance with hardware drivers. That's the drawback of having a smaller user base.
I'll concede the point if your main/only metric is versatility and your primary use case is desktop or mobile. Mine is not.
As for drivers otherwise, depends on what hardware. For years FBSD kicked arse on Linux server side. Especially early years, nics, raid controllers, etc. and pretty much all else server side - then Linux's niche as well. Early Linux tcp/ip was horrible comparatively, for example. Even as late as "Code Red". Linux got more traction, more developers, and they raided *BSD drivers for "inspiration" so they could call them new works and license GPL. Remember when the "real enemy" was M$ and NT. Once that victory became a fait accompli the penguinistas needed a new enemy: the BSD's and pretty much all else not licensed GPL.
Ah, the marketing wars and psyops fud. Linux had RH behind it. FreeBSD only was ever ROSS. Real Open Source Software. Curious, how many here used RH early-mid 90's. RPM's were like Slack, had to track down all depends manually. About then I discovered FreeBSD and what a godsend their package and ports system were. Clearly superior and light years ahead. Well.. we all know how that history panned out. Mindshare. Linux became the darling of the media. Meanwhile, Yahoo, then the world's largest web site quietly built out on FreeBSD.
Post Dot Com Bomb, FreeBSD really suffered. They'd embarked upon a major kernel refactor targeting SMP support and performance. The ensuing economic crash resulted in devs employed by Yahoo being laid off. Hence FreeBSD 5.x really sucked for too many years. Then 6.x and 7.x, although improved... still not there. So I bailed on FreeBSD myself somewhere during those years to OpenSolaris because I wanted all that ZFS goodness. Yeah, we all know how that story played out.
That's my take on the history of the 90's thru mid 2000's anyways. Ymmv, but hope you at least enjoyed the stroll....
But... times change. Fast forward to modern days FreeBSD performance is on par or better and OpenSolaris is no more. Yeah, Linux is going to provide better glossy pixel, interface with the latest gadgets, etc. Desktop/Multimedia experience.
Workstation wise, where I am using my box to admin other servers, and maybe also want to run some servers on my Workstation for ease of testing locally and not having to spend money spinning up vm's in the cloud, works great. Take it over Linux any day. Way more stable. Way more sane. And dev is not being driven primarily by for profit companies ready, willing and able to change up the rules at their whim.
So what is this big hardware versatility win? Mainly proprietary GPU's and maybe some sound drivers for higher end multimedia creator use cases. I'm presently sporting an AMD GPU in this box w/four display ports powering three monitors and bunches o' pixels. Works dandy. And didn't break the bank. That said, I am not a gamer. Don't care about creating multimedia. My workstation was mostly for work related tasks rather than play.
And then, once again, came the big bad wolf knockin' at the door: M$ turned over a new leaf, embraced FBSD and raided it for Azure. Now isn't that one a gas? I've not kept up. Am told that M$ gives back "some" to community but mostly holds back. And like a few here, I have good cause to be leery of big companies becoming too involved in FOSS. Cuz I got to ask y'all; "Is this IBM deal the first time you've been burned?". Thought not.
Heh, can you tell I am grouchy mood today? Procrastinating on other things. Apologies for the wall of text.
