Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Red Hat Software Linux Business Operating Systems Linux

Red Hat Hires CentOS Developers 91

Posted by timothy
from the first-national-brain-trust-of-raleigh dept.
rjmarvin writes "Karanbir Singh and a handful of other CentOS developers are now full-time Red Hat employees, working in-house on the CentOS distribution with more transparent processes and methods. None of the CentOS developers will be working on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The CentOS project would become another distribution and community cared for by Red Hat, like Fedora, and Red Hat CTO Brian Stevens says the company is planning its future around OpenStack, not just Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Hires CentOS Developers

Comments Filter:
  • They could take over Solaris development too...

    • Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wiggles (30088) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @10:20AM (#46217709)

      Nah. Oracle would rather kill Solaris than let that happen.

      • Sadly, I believe you're correct.
      • Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bobbied (2522392) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @10:50AM (#46218007)

        Nah. Oracle would rather kill Solaris than let that happen.

        Good riddance... Solaris is nothing special or unique, at least these days. It's best feature was that it ran on Sparc based hardware, which when Sun Micro Systems was in it's heyday said "Rock Solid reliability". So if you wanted something to run for a decade or two, you purchased Sun hardware which locked you into Solaris. Now days, who cares about Solaris? Running Solaris on X86 hardware it is pointless because it buys you nothing in reliability while costing you in obscurity. Just go to a stable Linux distribution.

        The ONLY reason you field Solaris now, is if your customer demands it or your legacy application is not easily ported. The one possible exception to this might be if you are putting up an Oracle cluster.

        Solaris is going to die... It probably should too.

        • Nah. Oracle would rather kill Solaris than let that happen.

          Good riddance... Solaris is nothing special or unique, at least these days. It's best feature was that it ran on Sparc based hardware, which when Sun Micro Systems was in it's heyday said "Rock Solid reliability". So if you wanted something to run for a decade or two, you purchased Sun hardware which locked you into Solaris. Now days, who cares about Solaris? Running Solaris on X86 hardware it is pointless because it buys you nothing in reliability while costing you in obscurity. Just go to a stable Linux distribution.

          The ONLY reason you field Solaris now, is if your customer demands it or your legacy application is not easily ported. The one possible exception to this might be if you are putting up an Oracle cluster.

          Solaris is going to die... It probably should too.

          Actually, Solaris had several good features. It had much better resource management than Linux does, and the introduction of Solaris Zones allowed a high-performance VM environment while minimizing the amount of gratuitous replication of resources. Basically, sort of a chroot jail + COW filesystem with service level controls.

          Sadly, however, the Solaris admins where I worked were never trained to take advantage of those features, so eventially Solaris got booted in favor of lots of Linux and Windows boxes.

          • by bobbied (2522392)

            Full disclosure... I've been a Solaris Admin, off and on for years who has only been briefly involved with using zones

            The zones idea is roughly equivalent to chroot (or schroot in some use cases) on Linux. So if you like zones, you can do almost the same thing on a Linux box.

            Don't get me wrong, I liked Solaris as an OS. The reality is that Solaris is going to die and go the way of SCO Unix. The sooner it dies, the better at this point.

            • Solaris zones (Score:3, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Full disclosure... I've been a Solaris Admin, off and on for years who has only been briefly involved with using zones

              Your comments show this.

              The zones idea is roughly equivalent to chroot (or schroot in some use cases) on Linux. So if you like zones, you can do almost the same thing on a Linux box.

              No, it's not. Chroot is a (mostly) completely useless mechanism for security and isolation.

              With zones, you can set up the zone with a completely different IP, with different firewall rules and even routing tables, and give some access to the root account on that zone, and not have to worry about them breaking out of the zone or affecting the hosting system (because you can put memory and CPU restrictions on the zone so it doesn't eat up system-wide resources). You can have dozens of

            • I believe zones are closer to Linux's LXC system than chroot. chroot is just a filesystem thing, zones/LXC is an entire wrapper around a tree of processes that covers everything - the file system, the network, and so on.
              • by bobbied (2522392)

                Chroot is really a process thing that changes how that process sees the file system. It doesn't do anything to the file system. But, pretty much everything is file system based in Linux so everything under the parent process lives in the chroot jail. If you are careful and you use schroot, you can actually run two different distributions (with common kernel) in different processes. I've seen systems running multiple incompatible versions of libC from multiple distributions including multiple IP addresse

                • Well, the example I gave was the network. Yes, chroot does help seperate groups processes (although it's important to understand the seperation is insecure by design, that is any root process can easily escape a chroot environment and have access to the main file system, which means you're limited in what types of process you can run if you want a chroot'd environment to be "secure"), but there do exist operating system functions that are not and never have been accessable via the filesystem.

                  The example

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Solaris does have three cool things going for it, and as it happens they are all three letter acronyms

          FMA
          SMF
          ZFS

          So in Linux land this translates into:
          FMA - No equivalent
          SMF - init scripts/systemd/upstart depending on your flavour of linux but none of which has the same functionality.
          ZFS - BTRFS which is still in "beta" and doesn't support more advanced raid types?

          So while the bulk of my house is LINUX based (even my kids PC's run it) our main media system is solaris.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            ZFS is the one thing that keeps Solaris on the map, as a modern enterprise filesystem/LVM is the one thing Linux sorely lacks. Even Windows offers Storage Spaces and ReFS, which can detect bit rot.

            Then there is production level deduplication. ZFS does this actively, Windows does it with a background task that finds duplicated blocks. Linux has a few deduplication items, but none that would be considered production quality.

          • by unixisc (2429386)
            ZFS is there in FreeBSD as well. Dunno about the other 2
        • by 0racle (667029)
          Replacing systemd with smf and btrfs with zfs would be fantastic. Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris did so many things just right and Linux so wrong.
        • Re:Maybe (Score:4, Interesting)

          by saleenS281 (859657) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @01:25PM (#46219719) Homepage
          Nothing except ZFS, DTrace, crossbow, a fully featured SCSI target stack, and on solaris an extremely robust partitioning infrastructure. Here we are 9 years later and Linux still doesn't have a good answer.
          • by bobbied (2522392)

            (Sarcasm on) So YOU don't like LVM? Shudder shudder..

            • by fnj (64210)

              Get a clue. The "extremely robust partitioning infrastructure" referred to has nothing to do with disk drive partitioning. I am confident GP is talking about Zones [wikipedia.org].

              As for file systems, there is ZFS, and there are all the toy filesystems linux has. ZFS is actually much more than just a filesystem. LVM is an attempt to add on certain functionality missing from linux filesystems, but does not come close to providing everything ZFS has.

              Yeah, adaptations of Solaris' breakthrough features have made their way to l

              • by bobbied (2522392)

                Solaris was leading the pack, until Sun died, which was right about the time they went with the X86 port and shot themselves in the foot. Oracle buying them hasn't helped their prospects. Solaris is dying a slow and painful death.

                Time to shoot the horse and stop beating it..

        • by unixisc (2429386)

          But after a point, even Linux was available on SPARC, and that too not just Red Hat but pre-SCO Caldera, Debian and a few other distros. So if Solaris had nothing over Linux, then the latter should/would have replaced it everywhere that it was a better alternative. Like workstations in particular.

          In reality, the selling point that Solaris has over Linux is that being proprietary, Oracle can charge anything for it, which wasn't how Sun did it. Incidentally, does Oracle provide Linux to anybody wanting t

          • by bobbied (2522392)

            I suppose they would sell you that if you insisted. But I ask, why would you want to buy SPARC hardware then run Linux on it? Oracle sells X86 iron for their Linux customers. I'm just guessing, but I'll bet there is more profit margin in X86 systems than SPARC hardware (even if there is a significant premium for SPARC iron). Oracle is obviously still selling SPARC stuff, but I'm guessing they don't see enough profit to pay for the NRE to keep advancing the SPARC platform performance and it's pretty much

  • by HighOrbit (631451) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @10:24AM (#46217749)
    and not embrace and extinguish. Kudos to Redhat and CentOS.
    • am i oblivious to something other people can see or is RedHat Inc a genuinely sympathetic company? i am simply unable to find anyting this company has done that would be even remotely evil, unfair or greedy.

  • by bobbied (2522392) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @10:28AM (#46217793)

    Buy them! Or hire them like in this case..

    I've always wondered what RH could do about CentOS. It was obvious that RH wasn't all that happy with CentOS, at least at first. With CentOS having to refer to "the up-line vender" and removing all the RH references and graphics it has always seemed to be the Red Headed step child.

    So, does this mean RH has embraced the concept of CentOS, where "free is free" to download?

    • by Peter H.S. (38077) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @10:56AM (#46218089) Homepage

      That CentOS must remove all traces of Red Hat branding is due to trademarks and what not. Not really a problem to do for any serious distro anyway. Red Hat has apparently been quite happy with CentOS for quite a while, since it generates new costumers and people knowing RHEL-like environments and developers too.

      The corporate motive for getting directly involved in CentOS isn't trying to control a free edition of RHEL (there are many others besides CentOS), but is much more likely to be directed against Oracle who allegedly uses CentOS as Upstream for their Linux distro. Oracle haven't been smart enough to actually employ CentOS developers en masse, but with this move Red Hat can keep Oracle out of a controlling position in CentOS.

      Red Hats direct involvement in CentOS has many benefits for its users; The steering and participation in CentOS have been opened up (it was a small, rather closed group before). The concept of "variants" seems most promising, since it allows people to work on CentOS variants without the need to actually fork away and become their own little distro island. So Sci-Linux are contemplating becoming a CentOS Variant so they can work on the software they care about, instead of all the extra work there is in maintaining your own distro.

    • RedHat has always embraced CentOS, as proof that they really mean it when they say they're not selling Linux, they're selling support. Use CentOS when your boss's butt isn't on the line, support contract-wise. Use RedHat Enterprise where you need to be able to pay someone to help with your problems.
  • We still have Scientific Linux [scientificlinux.org].
  • by satan666 (398241) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @11:35AM (#46218521) Homepage

    Let me take a second to applaud Red Hat for doing this.
    This is why they own the Enterprise Linux market.

    Their thinking, in a nutshell, is this:
    Give the software (CentOS) to small companies.
    Get kids right out of college using it to build their home servers.
    Get everyone comfortable with CentOS/RHEL.
    When it is time to buy, they will buy RH. Simple.

    Here in NYC, Linux jobs are 99.99% RH/CentOS.
    Because CentOS is free, anyone can download it and test
    it. No disabled features, nothing. You want a job in Wall St?
    Download CentOS, sit down and learn the thing and then
    you WILL get a job! I guarantee it!

    Microsoft, Oracle, Apple take note: This is how you own
    a market. Not by squeezing every penny out of your
    customers.

    That's why Apple will never break into the Enterprise
    market. This is why Microsoft has lost the Enterprise
    market and this is how Oracle will fuck off and die soon
    (hopefully).

    Personally, I was a Slackware guy, for my home machines,
    but CentOS has won me over. Now, it is the only thing I use.

    One more thing: I work in Wall St. and I use RH/CentOS
    every single day.

    Red Hat, you guys rule. I salute you! Rock on!

    • by snookiex (1814614)
      Was it a poem? :D Well, on a serious note, it's kind of what Microsoft did back in the day (and still does somehow), or even Borland. It's a good strategy. In my company, we use CentOS for testing purposes, but in actual deployments we recommend our customers to get RHEL and buy support from the original developers of all the other open source components we use, if it applies.
    • More accurate:

      We really messed up by ditching the RedHat free edition and creating the bleeding edge Fedora distribution expecting it to satisfy everyone's needs.

      We need to support the efforts of CentOS to keep the spirit of RedHat free edition alive.

  • I wouldn't be surprised if RedHat did this to not only keep a community based RHEL afloat, but to also have direct access to the users in order to sale them the paid RHEL edition.

    I wish continued success of CentOS but I've been burned by RedHat's "you need to pay for continued support to get updates or suffer through our brand new, very unstable (bleeding edge), and free Fedora distribution" tactic. I hope they aren't planning a similar fate for CentOS.

  • to the CentOS team.

    You deserve a vacation for your hard work...

    Good. Did you enjoy it?

    Now get back to work. :-)

  • Note: this is basically the same story as http://linux.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] . The source is datelined February 10, 2014 , but starts "On Jan. 7, Karanbir Singh, project lead on CentOS, announced to his community that he and a handful of other core CentOS developers would now be employed full-time by Red Hat." (emphasis mine). The hiring isn't a new thing, it was announced at the time of the whole CentOS announcement (and actually happened, er, considerably earlier, AIUI).

  • It's great to know a good company like Red Hat is behind CentOS. CentOS is already great stuff now, and will hopefully be even better with the corporate backing. It should be a winning situation for all parties, including the end user.

Truth is free, but information costs.

Working...