Canonical, Ubuntu, and Why I Seem so Upset About Them All the Time

Re:Canonical, Ubuntu, and Why I Seem so Upset About Them All... by digi_owl on Thursday February 18, 2016 @11:43PM (#11131599)

I think its because most people do not notice the RH behavior. they used to release patch sets for the kernel along with its source. this made it easy for CentOS to roll a "clone" of RHEL. but that changed when Oracle did the same as CentOS and produced Oracle Linux. And now CentOS is part of the RH "family".

frankly i think Canonical is trying to avoid a "Oracle Linux" scenario happening to Ubuntu.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical, Ubuntu, and Why I Seem so Upset About Them All... by bonzini on Friday February 19, 2016 @02:48AM (#11132234)

> this made it easy for CentOS to roll a "clone" of RHEL

This makes no sense. Having patch sets or a single huge tarball is exactly the same as far as CentOS is concerned. Also, the patch sets for RHEL6 would be around four times the size of the kernel itself so there are also practical reasons to stop distributing them (of course Oracle _is_ a reason, I'm not denying that).

The delay in CentOS 6 was due to personal reasons, not to the change in the distribution policy for kernel patch sets.

CentOS was acqui-hired because Red Hat needed CentOS as the base for community development of its RHEL-based products (oVirt for RHEV, RDO for RH OpenStack, and so on).

[ Parent | on HN ]