I have mixed feelings about this, but before I pass any kind of judgement, I want to see what directions this goes in. I happen to really like AlmaLinux. I run it as the OS on my proxy server and it has been very reliable. I am more critical of this misguided marketing notion of “Enterprise Linux.” It has everyone in fear, most notably the PHB, of running Linux. If you have the in-house tools and expertise to run Linux, the whole “Enterprise Linux” FUD should not apply.
What the idiots in charge want is somebody to yell at if things don’t work and to throw their weight around. What they don’t know is that there is enough legalese in the terms of use to basically render Red Hat and IBM blameless. You know how difficult it is to sue a software company? It’s very hard.
My last job we had RHEL on most of our linux boxes (it was a predominantly Windows shop). In the 8 years I was there I made use of the RHEL support we had once, about a kernel issue, that I never got any resolution or workarounds for.
At the time I pushed to phase them out for CentOS boxes to save costs but mostly wasn’t listened to.
Yeah, I’d like to see where they want to go with it too. Looks like the primary motivation is “we can now accept bug fixes outside of Red Hat’s release cycle”.
I’m running Alma at home right now, and I’ll probably continue to, if it’s RHEL-like but a little faster paced on updates. Rocky still maintains bug compatibility, so it’s still an option if you want that.
I have mixed feelings about this, but before I pass any kind of judgement, I want to see what directions this goes in. I happen to really like AlmaLinux. I run it as the OS on my proxy server and it has been very reliable. I am more critical of this misguided marketing notion of “Enterprise Linux.” It has everyone in fear, most notably the PHB, of running Linux. If you have the in-house tools and expertise to run Linux, the whole “Enterprise Linux” FUD should not apply.
What the idiots in charge want is somebody to yell at if things don’t work and to throw their weight around. What they don’t know is that there is enough legalese in the terms of use to basically render Red Hat and IBM blameless. You know how difficult it is to sue a software company? It’s very hard.
My last job we had RHEL on most of our linux boxes (it was a predominantly Windows shop). In the 8 years I was there I made use of the RHEL support we had once, about a kernel issue, that I never got any resolution or workarounds for.
At the time I pushed to phase them out for CentOS boxes to save costs but mostly wasn’t listened to.
I am not surprised in the least. Support contracts sold on fear, uncertainty, and doubt are money makers.
Mostly you’re paying so that never getting any resolution is someone else’s fault.
Yeah, I’d like to see where they want to go with it too. Looks like the primary motivation is “we can now accept bug fixes outside of Red Hat’s release cycle”.
I’m running Alma at home right now, and I’ll probably continue to, if it’s RHEL-like but a little faster paced on updates. Rocky still maintains bug compatibility, so it’s still an option if you want that.