It just occurred to me… could Oracle put ZFS into Oracle Linux? Or is the license conflict still an issue there?
There’s still a license conflict.
But it only matters if someone decides to litigate, and iirc, it was oracle who would have to litigate.
So it seems to me that it’s a moot point.
4 Likes
IDK about the license but it would eat into their zfs appliance sales
3 Likes
Yeah but what’s the appliance running? Solaris?
Yes, in fact.
And for the low cost of 1 million dollars you can have a HA setup.
Or round about.
3 Likes
So far, openSUSE acceptance testing has been going swimmingly.
Not a single problem that didn’t turn out to be ID-10-T or PEBCAK.
3 Likes
Do they have a IaaS platform like ovirt?
I’m sure they do.
Suse is the company that has everything but nobody knows about it.
I genuinely feel bad for them sometimes when I see the quality of the offerings.
3 Likes
Oh they’ve owned open stack since 2016… well then.
Oh yeah, forgot about that.
Yeah openstack is the best.
1 Like
Shame.
I never got a chance to use it.
Only really makes sense at large scale, if you don’t have 10+ machines, openstack is a waste.
1 Like
Did I miss the memo on Debian?
1 Like
So true. I feel bad too because I want to use Suse more, but at home it just feels off. But in a server environment, Zypper is the ish. I am just too spoiled by apt and dpkg. pacman is not too bad once you remember all of the arcane options. But zypper allows you to update and configure and take snapshots all in once spot with a GUI (or CUI). IT is glorious, but it does take a little bit of retraining how you administer a system.
I am also curious. I know that there has been another shuffle of maintainers and leaders, but this was not due to bad reasons this time.
1 Like
If Debian goes out, Canonical will take it and make Debian into an upstream Ubuntu and start opening up the upstream to the community, have a more open development and allow the community to decide what features to implement next and… oh, why does this sound familiar? 
(don’t mind that Ubuntu is already downstream from Debian and that Ubuntu’s development is done in the open)
You’ve hit the nail on the head pretty well. I think you’ve got the closest understanding of what’s going on here.
It was extremely unfortunate that the original announcement included the term “rolling release”. That’s not how CentOS Stream works. The core of it is CentOS Stream is Red Hat Enterprise Linux updates being released as they’re made and validated with their QA processes. Historically speaking, updates (including security fixes and other bug fixes) would be held back until the next point release unless it was very urgent . However, what determines urgency is difficult to determine. More often than not, Red Hat partners and customers ask for Red Hat to release things faster , and CentOS Stream is an opportunity to provide that.
CentOS Stream is Red Hat Enterprise Linux being continuously delivered. This was explained in a followup blog post, but it’s a shame it wasn’t part of the original announcement. There is a major advantage here: if something does go wrong with an update, you can get RHEL developers to respond to it, fix the bug, and have that fix released within days of it being validated for correctness and release.
For me personally, I had already been moving my CentOS 8 boxes to CentOS Stream 8 shortly after CentOS Stream went live last year. Not just because I want security and bug fixes faster, but also because CentOS Stream also lets folks who have the inclination to contribute bug fixes and enhancements (that don’t violate the principles of Red Hat Enterprise Linux) to help the broader community. This makes CentOS a much more participatory project.
Finally, Red Hat is working on making actual Red Hat Enterprise Linux available for production use for much lower cost (and even in many cases, for no cost at all!).
The Destination Linux podcast had a great interview with Mike McGrath, the VP of RHEL Engineering at Red Hat, to explain this better to everyone, and I encourage you all to take a listen.
3 Likes
The lack of a path for contributions or sane bug reporting process under the former CentOS model is a real problem. Sending patches all the way up to fedora for something that’s clearly a RHEL problem is a rough ride.
2 Likes
That’s why I’ve been frustrated with the red hat world for a while now.
100% agree there. Ran into that plenty of times.
Mmmm, kinda… there’s been changes and they don’t really claim ABI and other continuity like original CentOS did… but have been a Debian fan forever.
Downside: Commerical entities creating packages (binary) rarely test or support packages for it, choosing instead to support it’s much less stable child/off-spring, Ubuntu… “LTS” or not…
And of course there’s the downside of sometimes having to track what the Debian Devs’ latest internal drama llama crap (endless arguments, at least they’re public if one has the time for some of their children…) might mess up the distro, but that can happen anywhere… just wasn’t much of a risk in original CentOS, when you’re “simply” rebuilding a commercial quality source tree.
Ohhhh well, super-stability and binary compatibility with something the annoying hardware driver and security software companies actually could code to in the overall Linux community… and paid to “certify” their binary silliness… was nice while it lasted. 
1 Like