Would you be willing to post or provide a URL in which you cover in a
bit more detail your experience with the actual installation and any
issues that arose during the installation (including disk layout, file
systems used, etc)?
On 4/3/21 7:18 PM, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
|
