Hi, Following on from all of this discussion, I’ve just seen this article on The Register - https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/15/centos_alternatives/ <https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/15/centos_alternatives/>. One of the alternatives mentioned is Oracle Linux, and they say that they are 100% application binary compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux https://www.oracle.com/uk/linux/ <https://www.oracle.com/uk/linux/>. Is this a possible alternative to CentOS?
They have this interesting blog post, which has a script on it to convert from CentOS to Oracle Linux https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/ <https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/>. They also say that it is totally free and the same code as their paying customers - they charge for support. Any thoughts? Andy > On 9 Dec 2020, at 17:33, Ryan Williams <rya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the comments, Fred. I was hoping you were going to chime in. > > The commentary on Hacker News and elsewhere is far gloomier than yours. I > hope you are correct. > > Ryan > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:22 AM Fred Gleason <fr...@paravelsystems.com > <mailto:fr...@paravelsystems.com>> wrote: > On Dec 8, 2020, at 19:46, Mike Carroll <druidl...@gmail.com > <mailto:druidl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Not a popular decision, going by the comments on the post. > > I’m not actually sure that it’s The End of the World for Rivendell on CentOS > just yet. > > A lot will depend on what exactly changes between CentOS 8 and CentOS 8 > Stream. At first look, it appears that CentOS is merely moving their release > cycle to be just *ahead* of RHEL releases, instead of just *after*. If that’s > truly all it is, and, all importantly, provided the CentOS 8 ABI is being > held stable, then I see no reason *per se* that we couldn’t support Rivendell > just fine on CentOS 8 Stream. I do know that there has been a lot of > frustration within the CentOS Project about churn (particularly in the > package management realm) from Upstream; this move to CentOS 8 Stream I > suspect is an attempt to get a better handle on that problem by what might be > called a ‘pre-emptive release’ strategy that allows them to better > synchronize the state of their own port from Upstream. > > A lot will also depend on where EPEL lands with all of this. EPEL is part of > Fedora (not CentOS), and has historically always based their builds on RHEL. > Provided that the ABI is stable, it shouldn’t much matter, but the devil is > in the details. I’ve sensed a bit of the same ‘churn angst’ WRT Upstream with > many of the EPEL maintainers as well. > > We’ll see. Given that we don’t currently have a shipping CentOS 8 > integration, it’s definitely too early to panic. Indeed, holding off on that > integration is starting to look like a rather fortuitous move. > > Cheers! > > > |---------------------------------------------------------------------| > | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Chief Developer | > | | Paravel Systems | > |---------------------------------------------------------------------| > | A room without books is like a body without a soul. | > | | > | -- Cicero | > |---------------------------------------------------------------------| > _______________________________________________ > Rivendell-dev mailing list > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org > <mailto:Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org> > http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev > <http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev> > _______________________________________________ > Rivendell-dev mailing list > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org > http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
_______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
