[-] cinaed666@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago

If you want to know where a better place to post this was: the microblog part of this community.

[-] cinaed666@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Honestly, I feel the 1:1 compatibility issue is overrated.
We want a stable distro that has ABI compatibility throughout the 5-10year support cycle, I don't really care if it's 1:1 compatible with RHEL.
For the niche or specific usecases where RHEL compatibility is needed, they offer their UBI container.

In the past I did care more about it, because we were using specific Puppet modules and other provisioning tools that were validated against specific RHEL versions, but in the age of containerization it's much less of an issue.

It might be an issue with certain ISO compliance, because we can't just blindly throw a RHEL 8 CIS security benchmark script at a base Alma image anymore and expect everything to work fine. But it's not a dealbreaker in my sector. We can reach compliance by making up our own benchmarks. The sectors that don't have this luxury are probably already on RHEL for different reasons.

With what Rocky tried to do to remain 1:1 compatible with RHEL (Pretty much leaking and stealing the rpm sources) I'll stay with Alma, even if they are no longer "bug compatible".

[-] cinaed666@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/pull/2868

This is a good example of this kind of evangelism for the hot new packaging standard gone wrong.
A pull request was made for a half-baked appImage version of OBS by appImage creators.
They refused to support it, and the OBS developers refused to merge it because they have no appImage knowledge.
Drama ensued.

I do like how nixOS is tackling this issue, but I don't really care enough to switch away from Arch.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

cinaed666

joined 1 year ago