Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On 10/20/2018 6:23 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 05:52:12PM -0700, Japheth Cleaver wrote: The wider EL community is trapped between a rock and a hard place somewhat. If you try to direct Fedora into the needs of EL users, you stand a good chance of getting told to pound stand, and that EL is getting in the way of bleeding-edge progress. Traditionally, For what it's worth (I hope something!) I think this is an outdated fear or assumption. Before Fedora.next, the "default user" for Fedora was assumed to be an indiviual desktop user, and the overall Fedora OS offering meant to be one-size-fits-all but modeled to that user. That wasn't working, partly for the reason you identify here. Nonetheless, something like 20% of Fedora usage is on servers, and a lot of people work with Fedora in parallel with a Enterprise Linux deployment. We needed to find a place for those users to have a voice. So, Fedora Server was explicitly chartered as not just for its own sake (although we intend to make that true as well) but also the intentional upstream for downstream enterprise Linux consumers. That doesn't mean that every change there goes into RHEL, or is RH blessed or even Red Hat aligned — but the needs of EL users are *definitely* taken into account. wider EL-using community. Does it want direct feedback in the form of tickets? Should people form SIGs? Obviously RHEL7 is not changing init systems, but where should one talk about the future? If this is your interest, I'd really encourage you to get more involved in Fedora Server. We could use your input. This does indeed remind me of the "ring" concept, with the (perhaps overloaded) "Core" being something that all subsequent variations on top of Fedora (or Fedora-as-upstream) can use with potentially more and more alterations in policy, build, selection, and UX the further downstream you get. The problem is that it seems like very low level decisions are and have been made that align most closely with the needs of the "individual desktop user" rather than in a more neutral manner that allows for meaningful distinctions *outside* of minor configs. Fedora Server can override Fedora configs, but it still has to deal with those Fedora-wide changes. Knowing at least that, for now, Fedora Server is trying to serve in this role is definitely encouragement to get more involved there, but I do fear a larger paradigm shift is involved. Some of the Fedora-pushing is most visible in the use of Packaging Guidelines to implement that Fedora-specific policy; the outright *banning* of initscripts in RPMs (rather than allowing them to continue as subpackages or conditionals a la tcp_wrappers) is the ur-example, but there are more. Fedora inherited a lot of the moral leadership of RHL, but if there's question whether it can safely be considered "upstream" for EL (to say nothing of providing guidance other RPM-based distros), then I wonder if a further reorganization is necessary beyond Fedora into Fedora+Workstation/Server/Atomic. Maybe if we had something above both Fedora *and* EL (whether the EL is RHEL or a Community *Input* ENTprise OS) which worked to enforce maximal downstream flexibility for its packages (rawhide specs, if you were), it might reduce some of this tension and provide an easier entry point for people wanting to get more involved in EL, but not interfere with overall Fedora questions. (That's really two distinct proposals there, but I hope my meaning comes through.) -jc ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On 10/19/2018 9:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On Fri Oct 19 00:52:12 UTC 2018 Japheth Cleaver wrote: > This brings to mind a video I was pointed to not long ago of Brendan > Conoboy's talk at a Dojo recently: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQsUdLPJW20 Hey, that's me! Hi. By the way, Jim Perrin did an updated version of this talk *today* at CERN in my absence (thanks Jim!). Hopefully the video will be posted soon. I expect we'll be doing updated versions of these at Devconf, future Dojos, etc- as things progress. Thanks for responding! > Conoboy, on the other hand, takes great pains during the speech to > describe a much more fluid and complex interaction between CentOS > and its upstream, and puts forth CentOS as a mechanism (perhaps > the best mechanism) for the winder EL community to contribute > (something?) back into RHEL's future. He also gives clear signals > that various Fedora steps have been in directions that Red Hat did > not want EL necessarily going, and that the simplistic assumptions > we've commonly been making aren't really correct. You might be reading into this more than is there. It's not so much that things are fluid as it is that they are undefined. There is no clear, consistent way for a member of the Fedora or CentOS communities, who create something great, to have that thing make its way into an update of an existing RHEL major release. Defining that path, making it possible, would be win for all. *snip* > Red Hat (and Red-Hat-as-a-sponsor-of-CentOS) might > do well to clarify just what type of back-and-forth it wants out of > the wider EL-using community. Does it want direct feedback in the > form of tickets? Should people form SIGs? Obviously RHEL7 is not > changing init systems, but where should one talk about the future? Man, it breaks my heart when I read things like this. There might be some historic truth to the above, but it doesn't have to be the future. The objective I mentioned near the end of the talk has been posted, but not yet voted on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Lifecycle_Objective The beauty of community is that it can grow and shift according to the needs of its members. To me it looks like the lifecycle objective may be a partial answer to how Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS communities can reach a state of fluidity, a virtuous cycle. The thing that makes it the most likely to succeed is if members of the Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS communities work on it together. I hope those reading this who are interested in that join in. While I do believe that's important -- especially in helping to prioritize re-basing decisions, if not architectural ones, for updates -- I feel like things are still more open to interpretation for the lead-up *to* a major release. Modularity, software collections, and the like can be used alongside native EL point updates or a more flexible EPEL policy to incorporate new tech, but the impression is that by the time a RHEL beta makes it out, it's already a bit late for a community-suggested major changes. Bug reports? Yes. Design changes? Not as much. Having a stable platform OS design is a key principle for EL users, and Beta->0 seems late in the game. (Nevertheless, the lifecycle stream discussion is absolutely one that does need to be had, and I'm glad that there's that out there!) -jc ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On Sat, October 20, 2018 11:09 am, Yan Li wrote: > On 10/20/18 8:37 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> Oh, great, I now can see the world with your eyes! And last part about >> servers life cycle wise doesn't sound much different from what I do >> using >> FreeBSD and jails. The only difference is maybe in how frequently I have >> to reboot Linux (any flavor) due to kernel or glibc security update >> compared to reboot of FreeBSD. > > Yup. That's indeed a problem that the Fedora kernel is moving a bit too > fast for a server. Our machines sit behind a firewall, and as of I know, > our students are not crazy about privilege escalation/Meltdown attacking > their own servers. So we usually only reboot when there's a power outage > that is longer than what our UPS could handle, which is unfortunately > quite common on this campus. I can not afford that. I do run all machines (not only multi-user servers, but single user grad. student's workstations) in an assumption that bad guys are already inside. I have never seen privilege escalation attempts on single user machines, but I've seen a couple of times such attempts on multi-user machines. Unsuccessful for several reasons, still, that was fun to observer almost in real time ;-) So, I keep running all machines in an assumption that bad guys are already inside. Valeri > > -- > Yan Li > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On 10/20/18 8:37 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Oh, great, I now can see the world with your eyes! And last part about servers life cycle wise doesn't sound much different from what I do using FreeBSD and jails. The only difference is maybe in how frequently I have to reboot Linux (any flavor) due to kernel or glibc security update compared to reboot of FreeBSD. Yup. That's indeed a problem that the Fedora kernel is moving a bit too fast for a server. Our machines sit behind a firewall, and as of I know, our students are not crazy about privilege escalation/Meltdown attacking their own servers. So we usually only reboot when there's a power outage that is longer than what our UPS could handle, which is unfortunately quite common on this campus. -- Yan Li ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On Sat, October 20, 2018 10:22 am, Yan Li wrote: > On 10/20/18 7:42 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> I would like to hear the reasons of those who chose to use Fedora on >> their >> server. Specifically what advantages one has found compared to other >> alternatives. And also what kind of server that is. Single >> user/home/family one? Serving some department or similar (say 100 >> people, >> who may need services 24/7/365)? I know, this is just my curiosity, as I >> did make my own choice, but curiosity grossly fueled by the fact that my >> choice is grossly different. >> >> Always happy to hear different [from mine] opinions which may be based >> on >> different objectives. > > We are running about 50 development servers for the Storage Systems > Research Center in the University of California, Santa Cruz. All Fedora. > We will be updating all machines to F29 as soon as it is released. The > reason is that we want the students to have access to the latest > development toolchain, libraries, and other tools from the Linux world > in a reasonably stable fashion. Fedora is the best fit. Not bleeding > edge, but not outdated either. Our infrastructure servers, such as file > sharing, cluster management, etc., are all Fedora machines too, for > homogeneity and simplicity. > > We don't need 24/7/365 uptime, but in my memory, there has been no > downtime caused by anything in Fedora in the past decade. And we always > do in-place upgrading when a new Fedora comes out. Upgrading from one > Fedora to the next never failed us in the past decade either in my memory. > > Occasionally, one or more machines will be loaded with CentOS 7 for a > few months for running Lustre or some other CentOS/RHEL certified > software. > > This is unrelated to the campus-wise Linux clusters that are managed by > the university IT department, which maintains hundreds of CentOS > machines for the whole campus. > > I also know colleagues who maintain Fedora as servers from my other > jobs. These were for all kinds of services: email, file storage, > development, etc. Why Fedora over CentOS? I guess Fedora is more fun to > play with and is stable enough for these applications. As I said before, > in-place upgrading for Fedora is pretty reliable. And doing it once a > year (or every 6 months) to get the latest software is a good bargain > for a techie. Oh, great, I now can see the world with your eyes! And last part about servers life cycle wise doesn't sound much different from what I do using FreeBSD and jails. The only difference is maybe in how frequently I have to reboot Linux (any flavor) due to kernel or glibc security update compared to reboot of FreeBSD. Thanks a lot! Valeri > > -- > Yan Li > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On 10/20/18 7:42 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: I would like to hear the reasons of those who chose to use Fedora on their server. Specifically what advantages one has found compared to other alternatives. And also what kind of server that is. Single user/home/family one? Serving some department or similar (say 100 people, who may need services 24/7/365)? I know, this is just my curiosity, as I did make my own choice, but curiosity grossly fueled by the fact that my choice is grossly different. Always happy to hear different [from mine] opinions which may be based on different objectives. We are running about 50 development servers for the Storage Systems Research Center in the University of California, Santa Cruz. All Fedora. We will be updating all machines to F29 as soon as it is released. The reason is that we want the students to have access to the latest development toolchain, libraries, and other tools from the Linux world in a reasonably stable fashion. Fedora is the best fit. Not bleeding edge, but not outdated either. Our infrastructure servers, such as file sharing, cluster management, etc., are all Fedora machines too, for homogeneity and simplicity. We don't need 24/7/365 uptime, but in my memory, there has been no downtime caused by anything in Fedora in the past decade. And we always do in-place upgrading when a new Fedora comes out. Upgrading from one Fedora to the next never failed us in the past decade either in my memory. Occasionally, one or more machines will be loaded with CentOS 7 for a few months for running Lustre or some other CentOS/RHEL certified software. This is unrelated to the campus-wise Linux clusters that are managed by the university IT department, which maintains hundreds of CentOS machines for the whole campus. I also know colleagues who maintain Fedora as servers from my other jobs. These were for all kinds of services: email, file storage, development, etc. Why Fedora over CentOS? I guess Fedora is more fun to play with and is stable enough for these applications. As I said before, in-place upgrading for Fedora is pretty reliable. And doing it once a year (or every 6 months) to get the latest software is a good bargain for a techie. -- Yan Li ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On Sat, October 20, 2018 8:23 am, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 05:52:12PM -0700, Japheth Cleaver wrote: >> The wider EL community is trapped between a rock and a hard place >> somewhat. If you try to direct Fedora into the needs of EL users, >> you stand a good chance of getting told to pound stand, and that EL >> is getting in the way of bleeding-edge progress. Traditionally, > > For what it's worth (I hope something!) I think this is an outdated fear > or > assumption. Before Fedora.next, the "default user" for Fedora was assumed > to > be an indiviual desktop user, and the overall Fedora OS offering meant to > be > one-size-fits-all but modeled to that user. That wasn't working, partly > for the reason you identify here. Nonetheless, something like 20% of > Fedora > usage is on servers, and a lot of people work with Fedora in parallel with > a Enterprise Linux deployment. We needed to find a place for those users > to > have a voice. I would like to hear the reasons of those who chose to use Fedora on their server. Specifically what advantages one has found compared to other alternatives. And also what kind of server that is. Single user/home/family one? Serving some department or similar (say 100 people, who may need services 24/7/365)? I know, this is just my curiosity, as I did make my own choice, but curiosity grossly fueled by the fact that my choice is grossly different. Always happy to hear different [from mine] opinions which may be based on different objectives. Valeri > > So, Fedora Server was explicitly chartered as not just for its own sake > (although we intend to make that true as well) but also the intentional > upstream for downstream enterprise Linux consumers. That doesn't mean that > every change there goes into RHEL, or is RH blessed or even Red Hat > aligned > â but the needs of EL users are *definitely* taken into account. > > >> wider EL-using community. Does it want direct feedback in the form >> of tickets? Should people form SIGs? Obviously RHEL7 is not changing >> init systems, but where should one talk about the future? > > If this is your interest, I'd really encourage you to get more involved > in Fedora Server. We could use your input. > > > -- > Matthew Miller > > Fedora Project Leader > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 05:52:12PM -0700, Japheth Cleaver wrote: > The wider EL community is trapped between a rock and a hard place > somewhat. If you try to direct Fedora into the needs of EL users, > you stand a good chance of getting told to pound stand, and that EL > is getting in the way of bleeding-edge progress. Traditionally, For what it's worth (I hope something!) I think this is an outdated fear or assumption. Before Fedora.next, the "default user" for Fedora was assumed to be an indiviual desktop user, and the overall Fedora OS offering meant to be one-size-fits-all but modeled to that user. That wasn't working, partly for the reason you identify here. Nonetheless, something like 20% of Fedora usage is on servers, and a lot of people work with Fedora in parallel with a Enterprise Linux deployment. We needed to find a place for those users to have a voice. So, Fedora Server was explicitly chartered as not just for its own sake (although we intend to make that true as well) but also the intentional upstream for downstream enterprise Linux consumers. That doesn't mean that every change there goes into RHEL, or is RH blessed or even Red Hat aligned — but the needs of EL users are *definitely* taken into account. > wider EL-using community. Does it want direct feedback in the form > of tickets? Should people form SIGs? Obviously RHEL7 is not changing > init systems, but where should one talk about the future? If this is your interest, I'd really encourage you to get more involved in Fedora Server. We could use your input. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On Fri Oct 19 00:52:12 UTC 2018 Japheth Cleaver wrote: > This brings to mind a video I was pointed to not long ago of Brendan > Conoboy's talk at a Dojo recently: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQsUdLPJW20 Hey, that's me! Hi. By the way, Jim Perrin did an updated version of this talk *today* at CERN in my absence (thanks Jim!). Hopefully the video will be posted soon. I expect we'll be doing updated versions of these at Devconf, future Dojos, etc- as things progress. > For quite a long time, many (perhaps most) folks had assumed that > Fedora functioned more or less directly as the internal alpha for > RHEL, with a branch at some point occurring, followed by pruning > of packages, hardening, vendor testing, and release. This is roughly true for new releases (plus or minus the kernel), but not for subsequent minor release updates. It is a shame because so much great work happens in Fedora between major RHEL releases. > Subsequently, > CentOS (even after the RH integration) functioned *strictly* as a > clean-room downstream rebuild, with the ability to do unsupported > things, like alternate architectures, or heavier kernels, restricted > to what could be done while maintaining a 100% binary compatible > rebuild. Any contributions back up where taken to be incidental, > from CentOS users reporting bugs that could be verified against RHEL. > > Conoboy, on the other hand, takes great pains during the speech to > describe a much more fluid and complex interaction between CentOS > and its upstream, and puts forth CentOS as a mechanism (perhaps > the best mechanism) for the winder EL community to contribute > (something?) back into RHEL's future. He also gives clear signals > that various Fedora steps have been in directions that Red Hat did > not want EL necessarily going, and that the simplistic assumptions > we've commonly been making aren't really correct. You might be reading into this more than is there. It's not so much that things are fluid as it is that they are undefined. There is no clear, consistent way for a member of the Fedora or CentOS communities, who create something great, to have that thing make its way into an update of an existing RHEL major release. Defining that path, making it possible, would be win for all. > Obviously, there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy there. > > The wider EL community is trapped between a rock and a hard place > somewhat. If you try to direct Fedora into the needs of EL users, > you stand a good chance of getting told to pound stand, and that > EL is getting in the way of bleeding-edge progress. Traditionally, > CentOS has had its hands tied since it aims to be 100% compatible > with upstream. Red Hat (and Red-Hat-as-a-sponsor-of-CentOS) might > do well to clarify just what type of back-and-forth it wants out of > the wider EL-using community. Does it want direct feedback in the > form of tickets? Should people form SIGs? Obviously RHEL7 is not > changing init systems, but where should one talk about the future? Man, it breaks my heart when I read things like this. There might be some historic truth to the above, but it doesn't have to be the future. The objective I mentioned near the end of the talk has been posted, but not yet voted on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Lifecycle_Objective The beauty of community is that it can grow and shift according to the needs of its members. To me it looks like the lifecycle objective may be a partial answer to how Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS communities can reach a state of fluidity, a virtuous cycle. The thing that makes it the most likely to succeed is if members of the Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS communities work on it together. I hope those reading this who are interested in that join in. -- Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On Oct 18, 2018, at 7:35 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > It is certainly not a lot of work Typo: remove “not”. Running your own Linux distro is a *lot* of work. Just ask our benefactors here! Also, I should clarify that I’m not calling for action for my own benefit. I’m a happy CentOS 7 user; it would take a *very* nice alternative to make me switch. I’m just saying that I’d much rather see people starting a project to produce a new distro than more anti-systemd griping. If the project is successful, the user community can then vote with its feet. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)
On Oct 18, 2018, at 6:52 PM, Japheth Cleaver wrote: > > Conoboy, on the other hand, takes great pains during the speech to describe a > much more fluid and complex interaction between CentOS and its upstream, and > puts forth CentOS as a mechanism (perhaps the best mechanism) for the winder > EL community to contribute (something?) back into RHEL's future. I don’t see a change as significant as a new (or old!) init system making its way up from CentOS or Fedora to RHEL. But hey, if you wanted to spend your time trying, that’s a *far* better use of your time than griping about systemd on mailing lists. I think forking CentOS 5 or 6 is less effort, but hey, your time, your project. If anyone out there is thinking this is too much work, some of the major Linux distributions are, or were at one point, largely one-person efforts. It is certainly not a lot of work, but you don’t need a multibillion dollar company to fork CentOS. Both projects could fail, and it would still be a much better signal to Red Hat what the people want. Again: working code argues best. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
