On 4/3/21 4:43 PM, Yasha Karant wrote:
> I have not downloaded (and thus not installed) AL8. From below:
>
> with
> > unfortunate issues precisely replicing [replicating?] those of RHEL installation
> > media, such as an absurd number of confusingly distinct software
> > channels, and no default mirror list on the network bootable media.
> >
>
> My recollection of a fresh install of SL (it has been a number of years, and thus memory may be defective) is that SL provided a set of mirrors.
> Is one to assume that AL8 has no such mirrors or that AL8 network bootable media does not include the list so established?
>
> Also, to be clear, you state:
> > The various open source and GPL licenses prevent most of that.
>
> This is similar to the comment I posted on AL8 based upon the AL web site. However, is IBM RH *required* to provide downloadable full source (including any special "build" tools
> that are required), or to charge a sensible price for distribution of the full source on physical media? If so, is it required in a timely fashion? E.g., a security issue is
> discovered in RPM "X". IBM RH releases the updated binary installable RPM to the subscribers -- can IBM RH wait weeks, months, ..., before releasing the "fix" in source code?
>
> If IBM RH were to refuse to release buildable source identical to what is used to produce IBM RHEL, given the large number of lawyers working for IBM, could FSF, Linux, etc, do
> anything or would the matter be litigated (essentially forever)? All of the software is released without any guarantees -- is there a guarantee that what IBM RH releases in
> source will in fact be what is used internally within IBM RH to generate the IBM RHEL binary installation?
>
> The above questions may seem extreme, but it is clear from the actions of IBM RH that the statements from that vendor are not trustworthy.
>
> On 4/3/21 3:19 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 5:52 PM Konstantin Olchanski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 11:39:17AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> AlmaLinux stable release is now available.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Question is: but for how long? until red hat pulls a centos on them?
>>>
>>> P.S.
>>>
>>> My message is "FU!D". Fear, check! Uncertainty, check! Deception? Nope, happened
>>> before, will happen again. cease&desist letters, AT&T/BSDI and SCO/IBM-style
>>> law suits, offers-you-cannot-refuse to principal developers, etc.
>>
>> The various open source and GPL licenses prevent most of that. Pulling
>> a CentOS.... would take a decade at least, and they'd need to
>> basically hire the key AlmaLinux crew, and it would cost significant
>> money. Keeping an OS integrated and stable is a great deal of work,
>> I'd keep much more of an eye open for personal issues among the core
>> developers. The AlmaLinux 8.x seems good quality so far, with
>> unfortunate issues precisely replicing those of RHEL installation
>> media, such as an absurd number of confusingly distinct software
>> channels, and no default mirror list on the network bootable media.
I just migrated workload from Scientific 6 to Alma.
I was on Scientific 6 avoiding systemd/firewalld... But it DOES work.
So far.
|
