Re: Q: Centos vs SL

[David Sommerseth]

On 15/09/2019 21:29, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> 
> Now that Red Hat owns CentOS and IBM owns Red Hat, I wonder when CentOS 8 will
> be released.
> 




-- 
kind regards,

David Sommerseth

Re: Q: Centos vs SL

[Konstantin Olchanski]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:29:20PM -0700, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> 
> Now that Red Hat owns CentOS and IBM owns Red Hat, I wonder when CentOS 8
> will be released.
> 


The place to watch is "google CERN linux",
which takes you to http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/
click on "next version" which takes you to 
http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/centos8/
which states "Next linux version will be based on CentOS 8"
and links to 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.centos.org_About_Building-5F8=DwIBAg=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=gLjKarHYkkZKBGl5US1kEKkaCLHtdsX_5TDAFMpyBFk=W0LpFflr0nI9lunzHip-MyRCsc9VyA9Fxa3PyHiTGKo=
 
which states "The final release will be on September 24".
with the explanation that work on CentOS-8 was delayed to release 7.7 first.

CERN, through the LHC experiments, through the major US DOE Labs and
Universities are a big traditional user of "Red Hat flavour" Linux.

The thought of CERN and all who follow them switching to a competing
product (hello, Ubuntu!) or rolling their own Linux distribution
(which the CERN organization is perfectly capable of) ensures
the continuation of CentOS, I would think.


-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Q: Centos vs SL

[Lamar Owen]

On 9/15/19 3:29 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:

...
Now that Red Hat owns CentOS and IBM owns Red Hat, I wonder when 
CentOS 8 will be released.


September 24th, 2019, looks to be the plan. See: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_CentOSProject_status_1173652996305170432=DwIBAg=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=oM-H-xCjbUM7LpxS4xiTLc7aYQ4bC-32DnViNyRvpOk=-acqlL9ZMeCSI307NXJ2edJzPKu5Hr76Owq_VkgSK3E= 

Re: Q: Centos vs SL

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

 (five years on...)

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25 AM Jos Vos  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:22:23PM -0600, davef...@protev.com wrote:
>
> > Now that Redhat has bought Centos...
>
> Red Hat did not buy CentOS.

I guess he should have said "acquired".

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__investors.redhat.com_ir-2Dresources_investor-2Dfaqs_what-2Dacquisitions-2Dhas-2Dred-2Dhat-2Dmade=DwIBaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=BV0CfvsDb_uC3rnZYwldekc4Iywghe9P6dycLXOnQMc=r6HX73U2aHBisE3xexunUm2_-aTc6aBuKJ_m6KivVF8=
 

Now that Red Hat owns CentOS and IBM owns Red Hat, I wonder when CentOS 8
will be released.

Does Scientific Linux (principals and/or community) have a contingency plan
if the answer turns out to be "never"?

 - Pat

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:29 AM Jos Vos  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:37:37PM -0800, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:22:23PM -0600, davef...@protev.com wrote:
> >
> > Please reread the news coverage and the press releases.
> >
> > My reading between the lines is that CentOS people were made
> > an offer they could not refuse.
> >
> > BTW, today, whois shows centos.org as registered by Red Hat. (Used to be
> > registered by one of the CentOS main developers).
>
> Not specifically meant as an answer to you, but as a comment in general:
>
> Some open source people (a community I consider myself part of, but
> not in this sense) tend to act like communists and look at companies
> acting in the open source world in a suspicious way (this word has
> already been used in this thread), some maybe even think capitalism
> is bad in general.
>
> Well, some companies indeed are evil and try to hijack and/or abuse
> open source software and its community.
>
> But in general, remember that today's major open source projects
> couldn't live without the support from (commercial) companies, where
> Red Hat is even one of the main players.  And until now RH has proven
> to play the game pretty well.
>
> Without Red Hat there was not Fedora, no RHEL, no CentOS (also not
> in the previous incarnation) and no SL.
>
> It's understandable that people around the CentOS community look at
> the RH/CentOS case in a critical way: I also did that myself.  But
> we have to live with the situation and it's not that bad now.
>
> Just my $0.02...
>
> --
> --Jos Vos 
> --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV   |   Phone: +31 20 6938364
> --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204
>

Re: QA: Centos vs SL

[Jos Vos]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:37:37PM -0800, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:

  On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:22:23PM -0600, davef...@protev.com wrote:
 
 Please reread the news coverage and the press releases.
 
 My reading between the lines is that CentOS people were made
 an offer they could not refuse.
 
 BTW, today, whois shows centos.org as registered by Red Hat. (Used to be
 registered by one of the CentOS main developers).

Not specifically meant as an answer to you, but as a comment in general:

Some open source people (a community I consider myself part of, but
not in this sense) tend to act like communists and look at companies
acting in the open source world in a suspicious way (this word has
already been used in this thread), some maybe even think capitalism
is bad in general.

Well, some companies indeed are evil and try to hijack and/or abuse
open source software and its community.

But in general, remember that today's major open source projects
couldn't live without the support from (commercial) companies, where
Red Hat is even one of the main players.  And until now RH has proven
to play the game pretty well.

Without Red Hat there was not Fedora, no RHEL, no CentOS (also not
in the previous incarnation) and no SL.

It's understandable that people around the CentOS community look at
the RH/CentOS case in a critical way: I also did that myself.  But
we have to live with the situation and it's not that bad now.

Just my $0.02...

-- 
--Jos Vos j...@xos.nl
--X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV   |   Phone: +31 20 6938364
--Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204

Re: QA: Centos vs SL

[Karel Lang AFD]

On 11/27/2014 08:58 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jos Vos j...@xos.nl wrote:


Red Hat did not buy CentOS.


They employ the principals and own the trademark.

Are you saying they got them for free?



Agreed with Patrick, i'm watching this whole deal with a suspicion.

--
*Karel Lang*
*Unix/Linux Administration*
l...@afd.cz | +420 731 13 40 40
AUFEER DESIGN, s.r.o. | www.aufeerdesign.cz

Re: QA: Centos vs SL

[Konstantin Olchanski]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:25:40PM +0100, Jos Vos wrote:
 On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:22:23PM -0600, davef...@protev.com wrote:
 
  Now that Redhat has bought Centos...
 
 Red Hat did not buy CentOS.
 

Please reread the news coverage and the press releases.

My reading between the lines is that CentOS people were made
an offer they could not refuse.

BTW, today, whois shows centos.org as registered by Red Hat. (Used to be
registered by one of the CentOS main developers).

-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: QA: Centos vs SL

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Karel Lang AFD l...@afd.cz wrote:
 On 11/27/2014 08:58 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:

 On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jos Vos j...@xos.nl wrote:


 Red Hat did not buy CentOS.


 They employ the principals and own the trademark.

 Are you saying they got them for free?


 Agreed with Patrick, i'm watching this whole deal with a suspicion.

It's a separate issue from should I use CentOS or Scientific Linux
in a number of ways. One is that Red Hat has always been very good
about publishing as much as possible of their source as compilable
freeware or open source, and has strived to make it available and
rebuildable by everyone. They have been model citizens, and that
should earn them some respect for their motives. I could spend all day
analyzing possible motivations, but they've followed the open source
and freeware rules and worked very well with 3rd party developers. I
applaud their historical behavior.

What does or will Scientific Linux have that is better? I've
appreciated the Scientific Linux community's support for new users,
and their inclusion of hooks for 3rd party repositories such as
Repoforge. I've also appreciated that they'd stayed out of burning
cycles trying to support Xen based virtualization. And the big kicker
for me right now is the inclusion of the third party atrpms, rpmforge,
adobe, elrepo, and rpmfusion as available yum configurations. I work
in the USA, so I have to be cautious about software patents and the
use of libdvdcss, which can decode copy protected DVD's.

That means that RHEL, and CentOS with personnel employed by Red Hat,
cannot contain the libdvdcss library. And it means that they're
unlikely to ever contain links to the atrpms repository, at
http://packages.atrpms.net/, where such potentially intellectual
property law infringing software may be found. So, for overseas
clients not bound by some of these laws and needing audio or dvd tools
that are legal in their country, I suggest they consider Scientific
Linux and revew the tools made available by yum install
yum-conf-atrpms

QA: Centos vs SL

[davefile]

All, I've read a lot of reviews online

and a recent pitch at CERN (before presentation!)

Now that Redhat has bought Centos...

https://www.google.com/#q=rhel+centos+cern+pdf

http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/docs/GDB%2020140212%20-%20Future%20of%20Scientific%20Linux%20in%20light%20of%20recent%20CentOS%20project%20changes..pdf

So I'm looking to head towards Centos and wondering how easy it
will be to install GEANT...and if I should wait. I am not a power 
user.

?

Thanks

Re: QA: Centos vs SL

[Jos Vos]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:22:23PM -0600, davef...@protev.com wrote:

 Now that Redhat has bought Centos...

Red Hat did not buy CentOS.

-- 
--Jos Vos j...@xos.nl
--X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV   |   Phone: +31 20 6938364
--Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204

Re: QA: Centos vs SL

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jos Vos j...@xos.nl wrote:

 Red Hat did not buy CentOS.

They employ the principals and own the trademark.

Are you saying they got them for free?

RE: QA: Centos vs SL

[Steven C Timm]

Remember that CERN turns the dates around to show day first.

The presentation you linked to dated 12/02/14 was given in February 12 2014.  
Those slides are pretty old.

But CERN did in fact go on to announce they would base on CentOS for version 7. 
 

Steve Timm



From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov 
[owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov] on behalf of 
davef...@protev.com [davef...@protev.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 12:22 PM
To: scientific-linux-users
Subject: QA: Centos vs SL

All, I've read a lot of reviews online

and a recent pitch at CERN (before presentation!)

Now that Redhat has bought Centos...

https://www.google.com/#q=rhel+centos+cern+pdf

http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/docs/GDB%2020140212%20-%20Future%20of%20Scientific%20Linux%20in%20light%20of%20recent%20CentOS%20project%20changes..pdf

So I'm looking to head towards Centos and wondering how easy it
will be to install GEANT...and if I should wait. I am not a power
user.

?

Thanks

Re: Centos vs. SL

[Jamie Duncan]

Back in the early 6.x days I did a default install (accepting all default
options from the ISO's anaconda) and did some non-scientific comparisons.
 I need to do this again...

http://lostinopensource.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/the-clone-wars-centos-vs-scientific-linux/

Some of it was pretty interesting.


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Paul Robert Marino prmari...@gmail.comwrote:

 Well correction that was one of the original goals of LTS (Long term
 support Linux) which was the name of one of the two efforts which were
 combine to create SL. Since then TUV a.k.a Red Hat has changed their
 lifecycle policy and made it much longer that it had been prior to RHEL 4
 I'm sure though if Red Hat decided to go back to a two or three year life
 cycle then SL's policy would change back to providing security patches over
 a longer period of time.





 -- Sent from my HP Pre3

 --
 On Jan 9, 2014 18:39, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 On 09/01/14 23:13, Paul Robert Marino wrote:

 SL is an exact match to RHEL with only a few variations such as the
 removed the client for Red Hats support site integration and added a few
 things like AFS because their labs need it. The differences are well
 documented in the release notes and its a short list.
 In addition SL guarantees long term patch availability even if Red Hat is
 no longer supporting that release.

 This wasn't my understanding. According to this page
 https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions ...
  * We plan on following the TUV Life Cycle. Provided TUV continues to
 make the source rpms publicly available.
 ... which disagrees with your statement. At least the way I read it.



 CentOS tends to do thing like update the PHP libraries to make it easier
 for web developers. And as a result they take longer for many security
 patches because they occasionally hit dependency issues due to the packages
 they have updated.

  I am pretty sure the base release does not do this kind of thing by
 default. It would be a major deviation from being binary compatible with
 upstream vendor, which is how I recall their stated goal to be. It may be
 optional, however.




  -- Sent from my HP Pre3

  --
 On Jan 9, 2014 13:17, Orion Poplawski 
 or...@cora.nwra.comor...@cora.nwra.comwrote:

 On 01/09/2014 05:54 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:.
  What technical differences would be between CentOS + scientific repo and
 SL?
 
  Just a personal thought, but maybe this would free some human resources
  for maintaining a lot of scientific (and IT/grid related) packages in
  well established repos (like epel, fedora/rpmfusion)
 
  Thanks!
  Adrian
 

 Well, for me the main difference between CentOS and SL is that with SL you
 can
 stay on EL point releases. That would require a major change in the CentOS
 infrastructure to support it. Worth exploring though...


 --
 Orion Poplawski
 Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com
 Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com





-- 
Thanks,

Jamie Duncan
@jamieeduncan

Re: Centos vs. SL

[Orion Poplawski]

On 01/09/2014 05:54 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:.
 What technical differences would be between CentOS + scientific repo and SL?
 
 Just a personal thought, but maybe this would free some human resources
 for maintaining a lot of scientific (and IT/grid related) packages in
 well established repos (like epel, fedora/rpmfusion)
 
 Thanks!
 Adrian
 

Well, for me the main difference between CentOS and SL is that with SL you can
stay on EL point releases.  That would require a major change in the CentOS
infrastructure to support it.  Worth exploring though...


-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane   or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301   http://www.nwra.com

Re: Centos vs. SL

[Paul Robert Marino]

Well correction that was one of the original goals of LTS (Long term support Linux) which was the name of one of the two efforts which were combine to create SL. Since then TUV a.k.a Red Hat has changed their lifecycle policy and made it much longer that it had been prior to RHEL 4I'm sure though if Red Hat decided to go back to a two or three year life cycle then SL's policy would change back to providing security patches over a longer period of time.-- Sent from my HP Pre3On Jan 9, 2014 18:39, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: 
On 09/01/14 23:13, Paul Robert Marino
  wrote:

SL is an exact match to RHEL with only a few
  variations such as the removed the client for Red Hats support
  site integration and added a few things like AFS because their
  labs need it. The differences are well documented in the release
  notes and its a short list.
  In addition SL guarantees long term patch availability even if Red
  Hat is no longer supporting that release.

This wasn't my understanding. According to this page

https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions
...
"

* We plan on
  following the TUV Life Cycle. Provided TUV continues to make the
  source rpms publicly available."
  ... which disagrees with your statement. At least the way I read
  it.



  CentOS tends to do thing like update the PHP libraries to make it
  easier for web developers. And as a result they take longer for
  many security patches because they occasionally hit dependency
  issues due to the packages they have updated.
  

I am pretty sure the base release does not do this kind of thing by
default. It would be a major deviation from being "binary
compatible" with upstream vendor, which is how I recall their stated
goal to be. It may be optional, however.




  
-- Sent from my HP Pre3

  
On Jan 9, 2014 13:17, Orion
Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote: 

  On 01/09/2014 05:54 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:.
  
   What technical differences would be between CentOS +
  scientific repo and SL?
  
   
   Just a personal thought, but maybe this would free some human
  resources
  
   for maintaining a lot of scientific (and IT/grid related)
  packages in
  
   well established repos (like epel, fedora/rpmfusion)
  
   
   Thanks!
  
   Adrian
  
   
  
  Well, for me the main difference between CentOS and SL is that
  with SL you can
  
  stay on EL point releases. That would require a major change in
  the CentOS
  
  infrastructure to support it. Worth exploring though...
  
  
  
  -- 
  Orion Poplawski
  
  Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
  
  NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
  
  3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com
  
  Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com