Discussion:
CentOS has been effectively killed for production use
Add Reply
Simon Clubley
2020-12-09 13:34:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
production use by turning it into an unstable rolling distribution:

https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/

Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Andy Burns
2020-12-09 14:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
Wonder if CERN will rethink their decision to kill-off Scientific Linux
in favour of CentOS?
Simon Clubley
2020-12-09 18:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
Wonder if CERN will rethink their decision to kill-off Scientific Linux
in favour of CentOS?
You are not the first person to suggest that.

If they do that, it would solve this problem very nicely.

They are still supporting Scientific Linux 7 so they still have the
support infrastructure in place.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-09 14:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.

Arne
David Wade
2020-12-09 16:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Arne
But if you want something that runs on IBMs "Z" hardware there are not
so many and CENTOS was one of the cheaper ways of doing it.

Dave
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-09 16:37:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
But if you want something that runs on IBMs "Z" hardware there are not
so many and CENTOS was one of the cheaper ways of doing it.
I believe that.

Anything beyond x86-64 and maybe ARM reduces the options
dramatically.

Arne
Bill Gunshannon
2020-12-09 18:13:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Arne
But if you want something that runs on IBMs "Z" hardware there are not
so many and CENTOS was one of the cheaper ways of doing it.
What, exactly, would be the advantage of running Linux on "Z" hardware?
"Z" hardware's advantage is that it can run an IBM OS something that I
don't believe can be run on any other hardware platform. While Linux
can be run on damn near everything.

bill
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-09 18:29:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by David Wade
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
But if you want something that runs on IBMs "Z" hardware there are not
so many and CENTOS was one of the cheaper ways of doing it.
What, exactly, would be the advantage of running Linux on "Z" hardware?
"Z" hardware's advantage is that it can run an IBM OS something that I
don't believe can be run on any other hardware platform.  While Linux
can be run on damn near everything.
I don't think anyone buy a mainframe to run z/OS to run everything
in Linux Z instances.

But if you do have a mainframe with z/OS running some critical
application and you need to run some new stuff on Linux then it
may be attractive to use Linux Z instead of having both
mainframe and a bunch of x86-64 servers with VMWare.

I believe Linux Z is quite popular in the "very blue" niche.

Arne
David Wade
2020-12-10 00:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by David Wade
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Arne
But if you want something that runs on IBMs "Z" hardware there are not
so many and CENTOS was one of the cheaper ways of doing it.
What, exactly, would be the advantage of running Linux on "Z" hardware?
"Z" hardware's advantage is that it can run an IBM OS something that I
don't believe can be run on any other hardware platform.  While Linux
can be run on damn near everything.
bill
Bill,

IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS) or zVM
(formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that is over
sized, but even so you only get to use part of it. You pay with the soul
of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but IBM know that you
have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or Cobol and no one who
understands the business logic so you are pretty much stuck with a
mainframe.

You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation system
or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those risk analysis
holes you mentioned before.

However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity. Its
called "Integrated Facility for Linux"

https://www.ibm.com/uk-en/products/integrated-facility-for-linux

Appart from being marked as IFLs the Linux dedicated CPUs are no
different from normal z CPUs, well except IBM charge much less for them,

This strategy stops people from switching to another platform and
discovering that if you take care it will run as reliably as "z".

Its good old fashioned lock-in but the Mainframe market is small enough
that the "anti trust" brigade won't interfere....

https://www.theregister.com/2011/08/03/ibm_eu_mainframe_complaints_dropped/

I hope this explains why users run Linux on Z.

Dave
Bill Gunshannon
2020-12-10 01:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by David Wade
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Arne
But if you want something that runs on IBMs "Z" hardware there are
not so many and CENTOS was one of the cheaper ways of doing it.
What, exactly, would be the advantage of running Linux on "Z" hardware?
"Z" hardware's advantage is that it can run an IBM OS something that I
don't believe can be run on any other hardware platform.  While Linux
can be run on damn near everything.
bill
Bill,
IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS) or zVM
(formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that is over
sized, but even so you only get to use part of it.
Name one system seller that doesn't sell over sized boxes. :-)
Post by David Wade
You pay with the soul
of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but IBM know that you
have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or Cobol and no one who
understands the business logic so you are pretty much stuck with a
mainframe.
CICS is problematic, but I have never had a problem moving COBOL from
an IBM environment to another environment.
Post by David Wade
You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation system
or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those risk analysis
holes you mentioned before.
Or credit card handling. Or Government Payroll. Or an EMR system.
Or parts inventory. Or dozens of other businesses that still use
IBM Mainframes.
Post by David Wade
However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity. Its
called "Integrated Facility for Linux"
https://www.ibm.com/uk-en/products/integrated-facility-for-linux
Interesting.
Post by David Wade
Appart from being marked as IFLs the Linux dedicated CPUs are no
different from normal z CPUs, well except IBM charge much less for them,
This strategy stops people from switching to another platform and
discovering that if you take care it will run as reliably as "z".
Its good old fashioned lock-in but the Mainframe market is small enough
that the "anti trust" brigade won't interfere....
https://www.theregister.com/2011/08/03/ibm_eu_mainframe_complaints_dropped/
I hope this explains why users run Linux on Z.
OK. But I assume you have to get your Linux from IBM so I doubt the
CENTOS debacle will have any effect on them.

bill
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-10 01:31:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
Appart from being marked as IFLs the Linux dedicated CPUs are no
different from normal z CPUs, well except IBM charge much less for them,
This strategy stops people from switching to another platform and
discovering that if you take care it will run as reliably as "z".
Its good old fashioned lock-in but the Mainframe market is small
enough that the "anti trust" brigade won't interfere....
https://www.theregister.com/2011/08/03/ibm_eu_mainframe_complaints_dropped/
I hope this explains why users run Linux on Z.
OK.  But I assume you have to get your Linux from IBM so I doubt the
CENTOS debacle will have any effect on them.
Nope.

Linux on Z is not a distro, but Linux kernel support for Z.

The distro can be RHEL/CentOS or SUSE or Ubuntu or Debian
or really whatever.

Arne
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-10 02:11:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by David Wade
Appart from being marked as IFLs the Linux dedicated CPUs are no
different from normal z CPUs, well except IBM charge much less for them,
This strategy stops people from switching to another platform and
discovering that if you take care it will run as reliably as "z".
Its good old fashioned lock-in but the Mainframe market is small
enough that the "anti trust" brigade won't interfere....
https://www.theregister.com/2011/08/03/ibm_eu_mainframe_complaints_dropped/
I hope this explains why users run Linux on Z.
OK.  But I assume you have to get your Linux from IBM so I doubt the
CENTOS debacle will have any effect on them.
Nope.
Linux on Z is not a distro, but Linux kernel support for Z.
The distro can be RHEL/CentOS or SUSE or Ubuntu or Debian
or really whatever.
Prebuilt CentOS for Z:

old 4.9 version:
https://vault.centos.org/4.9/isos/s390x/

never versions (under the name ClefOS as it is not an
official CentOS build):
https://www.sinenomine.net/products/linux/clefos

Arne
David Wade
2020-12-10 10:52:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
OK.  But I assume you have to get your Linux from IBM so I doubt the
CENTOS debacle will have any effect on them.
No you can get it from any where that does a "z" distribution. There
aren't many because getting time on a z box is expensive.


So if you need supported it will generally be RHEL but for other
purposes CENTOS might suffice.
bill
Dave
G4UGM
Dennis Boone
2020-12-10 03:36:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
Appart from being marked as IFLs the Linux dedicated CPUs are no
different from normal z CPUs, well except IBM charge much less for them,
Well, mostly. IFLs (and z/OS) are carefully rigged so the IFL can't run
z/OS.

De
David Wade
2020-12-10 10:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dennis Boone
Post by David Wade
Appart from being marked as IFLs the Linux dedicated CPUs are no
different from normal z CPUs, well except IBM charge much less for them,
Well, mostly. IFLs (and z/OS) are carefully rigged so the IFL can't run
z/OS.
De
De,

I believe that its the other way round. zOS is carefully rigged so it
"normally" won't run on an IFL. There used to be options to licence bits
that normally don't run on an IFL on an IFL....

Dave
Dennis Boone
2020-12-10 15:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
I believe that its the other way round. zOS is carefully rigged so it
"normally" won't run on an IFL. There used to be options to licence bits
that normally don't run on an IFL on an IFL....
My understanding is that the "rigging" is to remove one or two
specific instructions from the architecture on an IFL, and make
sure the z/OS depends on using those instructions.

De
David Wade
2020-12-10 22:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dennis Boone
Post by David Wade
I believe that its the other way round. zOS is carefully rigged so it
"normally" won't run on an IFL. There used to be options to licence bits
that normally don't run on an IFL on an IFL....
My understanding is that the "rigging" is to remove one or two
specific instructions from the architecture on an IFL, and make
sure the z/OS depends on using those instructions.
De
Some non-definitive documentation implies that is the case:-

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zmainframe/zconc_mfhwPUs.htm

Integrated Facility for Linux® (IFL)
This is a normal processor with one or two instructions disabled that
are used only by z/OS®. Linux does not use these instructions and can be
executed by an IFL. Linux can be executed by a CP as well. The
difference is that an IFL is not counted when specifying the model
number of the system. This can make a substantial difference in software
costs.

This is mis-information....
... why

Well lets look at the definitive "Principles of Operations". This is the
bible for what the hardware does. (you will need an IBM ID to read this
but they are free)

https://www-01.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/lib03010.nsf/0/B9DE5F05A9D57819852571C500428F9A/$file/SA22-7832-12.pdf

it goes into great detail on how to test the processor type but no where
does it mention any difference in the instructions implemented.

This is odd, because if there were differences, you would need to know
them to write assembler, and its perfectly possible to write Assembler
on Linux, some kernel components are assembler. So if an IFL is
different you would expect it to be in the manuals.

Then lets look at the Z14 technical guide...

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg248451.pdf

This explains that if you order for example a Z14 Model 01 it comes with
33 CPUs. You can have any combination of "Normal" and IFLs (and some
other speciality engines) up to the 33 that are installed in the box.
What you get depends on how many licences you buy. The rest sit there as
spares.

so you can start with just 1 "Normal" CP and run zOS. If you want more
CPU power for zOS you send IBM money and they send you some new
"licenced internal code" (lic) that lets you define an extra "Normal"
CPU. If you want Linux you can send less money and IBM will send you new
LIC for one normal and one IFL. You continue with any mix up to the
limit of the box. Any not used are considered "spares"....

... page 109 says...
3.5.1 Overview

All PUs on a z14 server are physically identical. When the system is
initialized, one integrated firmware processor (IFP) is allocated from
the pool of PUs that is available for the entire system. The other PUs
can be characterized to specific functions (CP, IFL, ICF, zIIP, or SAP).

The function that is assigned to a PU is set by the Licensed Internal
Code (LIC). The LIC is loaded when the system is initialized at
power-on reset (POR) and the PUs are characterized. Only characterized
PUs include a designated function. Non-characterized PUs are considered
spares. Order at least one CP, IFL, or ICF on a z14 server.

This design brings outstanding flexibility to z14 servers because any PU
can assume any available characterization. The design also plays an
essential role in system availability because PU characterization can be
done dynamically, with no system outage.
so while the introductory guide says instructions are disabled none of
the technical documentation documentation supports this. It specifically
says all chips are identical at the silicon level.

Dave
G4UGM
Dennis Boone
2020-12-11 00:38:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
Well lets look at the definitive "Principles of Operations". This is the
bible for what the hardware does. (you will need an IBM ID to read this
but they are free)
it goes into great detail on how to test the processor type but no where
does it mention any difference in the instructions implemented.
First, giving away the details of the implementation would not be the
best customer control move. I'm sure just saying something is missing
isn't the whole story.

Second, the features "depended on" (possibly actually used, maybe just
tested for) by z/OS don't have to be a documented part of the
architecture at all.
Post by David Wade
All PUs on a z14 server are physically identical. When the system is
initialized, one integrated firmware processor (IFP) is allocated from
the pool of PUs that is available for the entire system. The other PUs
can be characterized to specific functions (CP, IFL, ICF, zIIP, or SAP).
The function that is assigned to a PU is set by the Licensed Internal
Code (LIC). The LIC is loaded when the system is initialized at
power-on reset (POR) and the PUs are characterized. Only characterized
PUs include a designated function. Non-characterized PUs are considered
spares. Order at least one CP, IFL, or ICF on a z14 server.
Yes, the silicon is supposedly identical, and I see no reason to doubt
that. Various things I've read over the years indicate that the silicon
is fairly strongly related to the Power architecture.

The above doesn't support your contention. It says that the LIC
("microcode") is different for different types of engines. That means
that different engines have different behaviors in execution. Remember
that 370 family machines have effectively been emulators since the early
70s.

I've heard the VM will actually run on an IFL. z/OS is the crown
jewels. :)

De
David Wade
2020-12-11 08:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dennis Boone
Post by David Wade
Well lets look at the definitive "Principles of Operations". This is the
bible for what the hardware does. (you will need an IBM ID to read this
but they are free)
it goes into great detail on how to test the processor type but no where
does it mention any difference in the instructions implemented.
First, giving away the details of the implementation would not be the
best customer control move. I'm sure just saying something is missing
isn't the whole story.
Second, the features "depended on" (possibly actually used, maybe just
tested for) by z/OS don't have to be a documented part of the
architecture at all.
Post by David Wade
All PUs on a z14 server are physically identical. When the system is
initialized, one integrated firmware processor (IFP) is allocated from
the pool of PUs that is available for the entire system. The other PUs
can be characterized to specific functions (CP, IFL, ICF, zIIP, or SAP).
The function that is assigned to a PU is set by the Licensed Internal
Code (LIC). The LIC is loaded when the system is initialized at
power-on reset (POR) and the PUs are characterized. Only characterized
PUs include a designated function. Non-characterized PUs are considered
spares. Order at least one CP, IFL, or ICF on a z14 server.
Yes, the silicon is supposedly identical, and I see no reason to doubt
that. Various things I've read over the years indicate that the silicon
is fairly strongly related to the Power architecture.
The above doesn't support your contention. It says that the LIC
("microcode") is different for different types of engines. That means
that different engines have different behaviors in execution. Remember
that 370 family machines have effectively been emulators since the early
70s.
I've heard the VM will actually run on an IFL. z/OS is the crown
jewels. :)
De
I believe that zOS will run on an IFL. It doesn't because it tests the
processor types and feature bits. I also think folks have had it run on
an IFL.

I know from the Hercules emulator project that zOS is very picky about
what it will run on. So newer versions won't run on old hardware. They
check the CPU type and feature bits.

Hercules allows you to pretend to have features you don't have. Often if
you enable these zOS runs just fine.

So IBM has no need to disable instructions and keep it secret. It can
lock zOS using the feature bits.

Disabling "one or two" instructions would also be fairly pointless. Its
relativity simple to fix. When a "z" box (or any of its predecessors)
executes an undefined instruction a particular behaviours occurs and a
fault handler is loaded. The fault handler can then simulate the missing
instructions.

This was used back in the day to simulate floating point or commercial
instructions that were options. It still works to this day.

You also say zVM will run. It does, as does any assembler that you write
for zVM. So if there is a missing instruction it must be invalid in a
zVM virtual machine running on an iFL.


Dave
Bob Eager
2020-12-11 09:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
Disabling "one or two" instructions would also be fairly pointless. Its
relativity simple to fix. When a "z" box (or any of its predecessors)
executes an undefined instruction a particular behaviours occurs and a
fault handler is loaded. The fault handler can then simulate the missing
instructions.
This was used back in the day to simulate floating point or commercial
instructions that were options. It still works to this day.
The same was true on some British machines I have used. Lower end
machines used software floating point (and other stuff) and higher end
ones did it in hardware.

Such instructions were often known as 'extracodes'.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-11 14:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by David Wade
Disabling "one or two" instructions would also be fairly pointless. Its
relativity simple to fix. When a "z" box (or any of its predecessors)
executes an undefined instruction a particular behaviours occurs and a
fault handler is loaded. The fault handler can then simulate the missing
instructions.
This was used back in the day to simulate floating point or commercial
instructions that were options. It still works to this day.
The same was true on some British machines I have used. Lower end
machines used software floating point (and other stuff) and higher end
ones did it in hardware.
Such instructions were often known as 'extracodes'.
H-floating

:-)

Arne
IanD
2020-12-16 11:34:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 11:41:39 AM UTC+11, David Wade wrote:

<snip>
Post by David Wade
IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS) or zVM
(formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that is over
sized, but even so you only get to use part of it. You pay with the soul
of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but IBM know that you
have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or Cobol and no one who
understands the business logic so you are pretty much stuck with a
mainframe.
You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation system
or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those risk analysis
holes you mentioned before.
However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity. Its
called "Integrated Facility for Linux"
Where I work they recently performed a mainframe upgrade because they have a number of projects now targeting the mainframe, one of the drivers being reducing the security venerability footprint and others from i/o requirements as data volumes explode

There is currently an industry shortage as federal institutions snap up personal with their deep pockets and Boomers retire

They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
David Wade
2020-12-16 12:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by IanD
<snip>
Post by David Wade
IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS) or zVM
(formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that is over
sized, but even so you only get to use part of it. You pay with the soul
of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but IBM know that you
have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or Cobol and no one who
understands the business logic so you are pretty much stuck with a
mainframe.
You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation system
or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those risk analysis
holes you mentioned before.
However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity. Its
called "Integrated Facility for Linux"
Where I work they recently performed a mainframe upgrade because they have a number of projects now targeting the mainframe, one of the drivers being reducing the security venerability footprint and others from i/o requirements as data volumes explode
There is currently an industry shortage as federal institutions snap up personal with their deep pockets and Boomers retire
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/education/master-the-mainframe

Dave
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-16 14:20:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by IanD
Post by David Wade
IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS)
or zVM (formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that
is over sized, but even so you only get to use part of it. You pay
with the soul of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but
IBM know that you have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or
Cobol and no one who understands the business logic so you are
pretty much stuck with a mainframe.
You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation
system or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those
risk analysis holes you mentioned before.
However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity.
Its called "Integrated Facility for Linux"
Where I work they recently performed a mainframe upgrade because they
have a number of projects now targeting the mainframe, one of the
drivers being reducing the security venerability footprint and others
from i/o requirements as data volumes explode
There is currently an industry shortage as federal institutions snap
up personal with their deep pockets and Boomers retire
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
IBM mainframe is a niche today.

But it is certainly a much bigger niche than the VMS niche.

And the niche is big enough and the attrition small enough
that it is practically a given that the mainframe will still
be around in 25 years.

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-12-16 14:53:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by IanD
Post by David Wade
IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS)
or zVM (formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that
is over sized, but even so you only get to use part of it. You pay
with the soul of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but
IBM know that you have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or
Cobol and no one who understands the business logic so you are
pretty much stuck with a mainframe.
You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation
system or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those
risk analysis holes you mentioned before.
However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity.
Its called "Integrated Facility for Linux"
Where I work they recently performed a mainframe upgrade because they
have a number of projects now targeting the mainframe, one of the
drivers being reducing the security venerability footprint and others
from i/o requirements as data volumes explode
There is currently an industry shortage as federal institutions snap
up personal with their deep pockets and Boomers retire
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
IBM mainframe is a niche today.
But it is certainly a much bigger niche than the VMS niche.
All computing today is a niche, when compared to tablets, smart phones,
and whatever else comes along.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-16 15:27:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by IanD
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
IBM mainframe is a niche today.
But it is certainly a much bigger niche than the VMS niche.
All computing today is a niche, when compared to tablets, smart phones,
and whatever else comes along.
I was just considering server. Today that is 90-95% x86-64 and
5-10% non-x86-64 (mainframe, Power, Sparc, ARM etc.).

Arne
Bill Gunshannon
2020-12-16 17:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by IanD
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
IBM mainframe is a niche today.
But it is certainly a much bigger niche than the VMS niche.
All computing today is a niche, when compared to tablets, smart
phones, and whatever else comes along.
I was just considering server. Today that is 90-95% x86-64 and
5-10% non-x86-64 (mainframe, Power, Sparc, ARM etc.).
And that depends very much on what you are actually counting.
Blogs, versions of Candy Crush Saga or real work like banking,
insurance and commerce. While the number of PC's in a Bank
greatly outnumbers the number of Mainframe Server Boxes the PC's
are really nothing but replacements for the 3270 terminals
they used to have and all the real work is done on the Big
Blue Box.

bill
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-16 18:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by IanD
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
IBM mainframe is a niche today.
But it is certainly a much bigger niche than the VMS niche.
All computing today is a niche, when compared to tablets, smart
phones, and whatever else comes along.
I was just considering server. Today that is 90-95% x86-64 and
5-10% non-x86-64 (mainframe, Power, Sparc, ARM etc.).
And that depends very much on what you are actually counting.
Dollars spent on servers.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Blogs, versions of Candy Crush Saga or real work like banking,
insurance and commerce.
If a service is able to generate revenue, then there is
money to pay for servers.

Market share stats do not distinguish between "real work"
and "non real work".

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-12-16 20:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by IanD
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
IBM mainframe is a niche today.
But it is certainly a much bigger niche than the VMS niche.
All computing today is a niche, when compared to tablets, smart
phones, and whatever else comes along.
I was just considering server. Today that is 90-95% x86-64 and
5-10% non-x86-64 (mainframe, Power, Sparc, ARM etc.).
Yes, but my point is, servers are a niche today.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-16 20:12:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by IanD
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
IBM mainframe is a niche today.
But it is certainly a much bigger niche than the VMS niche.
All computing today is a niche, when compared to tablets, smart
phones, and whatever else comes along.
I was just considering server. Today that is 90-95% x86-64 and
5-10% non-x86-64 (mainframe, Power, Sparc, ARM etc.).
Yes, but my point is, servers are a niche today.
True.

The client market is much bigger than the server market.

Which is why servers need to use client hardware
technology to stay competitive.

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-12-16 14:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by IanD
<snip>
Post by David Wade
IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS) or zVM
(formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that is over
sized, but even so you only get to use part of it. You pay with the soul
of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but IBM know that you
have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or Cobol and no one who
understands the business logic so you are pretty much stuck with a
mainframe.
You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation system
or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those risk analysis
holes you mentioned before.
However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity. Its
called "Integrated Facility for Linux"
Where I work they recently performed a mainframe upgrade because they have a number of projects now targeting the mainframe, one of the drivers being reducing the security venerability footprint and others from i/o requirements as data volumes explode
There is currently an industry shortage as federal institutions snap up personal with their deep pockets and Boomers retire
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
As a general concept, if one needs some capability, training is an
option. Also an option when VMS capable people are needed.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Bill Gunshannon
2020-12-16 17:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by IanD
<snip>
Post by David Wade
IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS) or zVM
(formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that is over
sized, but even so you only get to use part of it. You pay with the soul
of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but IBM know that you
have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or Cobol and no one who
understands the business logic so you are pretty much stuck with a
mainframe.
You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation system
or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those risk analysis
holes you mentioned before.
However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity. Its
called "Integrated Facility for Linux"
Where I work they recently performed a mainframe upgrade because they
have a number of projects now targeting the mainframe, one of the
drivers being reducing the security venerability footprint and others
from i/o requirements as data volumes explode
There is currently an industry shortage as federal institutions snap
up personal with their deep pockets and Boomers retire
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
As a general concept, if one needs some capability, training is an
option.  Also an option when VMS capable people are needed.
Nice thought. Sadly IBM Mainframe Operations, Development and Use
is still being taught in Universities. The same can not be said
for VMS. And it's not because some of us weren't fighting for
it to remain.

bill
Dave Froble
2020-12-16 20:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
Post by IanD
<snip>
Post by David Wade
IBM mainframes are big. If you need one to run zOS (formerly MVS) or zVM
(formerly VM/ESA, VM/XA etc) then they sell you a box that is over
sized, but even so you only get to use part of it. You pay with the soul
of your first born, or some other outrageous fee, but IBM know that you
have a pile of CICS code written in Assembler or Cobol and no one who
understands the business logic so you are pretty much stuck with a
mainframe.
You are probably using it to run a big bank, airline reservation system
or Air Traffic control. Moving from these hits into those risk analysis
holes you mentioned before.
However now you have the big animal IBM will let you use the spare
capacity to run Linux. They charge much less for this capacity. Its
called "Integrated Facility for Linux"
Where I work they recently performed a mainframe upgrade because they
have a number of projects now targeting the mainframe, one of the
drivers being reducing the security venerability footprint and others
from i/o requirements as data volumes explode
There is currently an industry shortage as federal institutions snap
up personal with their deep pockets and Boomers retire
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
As a general concept, if one needs some capability, training is an
option. Also an option when VMS capable people are needed.
Nice thought. Sadly IBM Mainframe Operations, Development and Use
is still being taught in Universities. The same can not be said
for VMS. And it's not because some of us weren't fighting for
it to remain.
bill
The concept is universal. If there is a need for a particular skill
set, training is an option. Hiring those who already have the skills is
another option. If such exists. Sometimes those claiming a specific
skill can be, "inventive". They can also be in that group that never
stops updating their resume.

Adequate training of capable people is sort of a better bet than the
hiring roulette wheel. The "free ride" some employers wish for can be
more expensive than they thought it might be.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Kerry Main (C.O.V.)
2020-12-16 23:26:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
-----Original Message-----
via Info-vax
Sent: December-16-20 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Info-vax] CentOS has been effectively killed for production
use
Post by IanD
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 11:41:39 AM UTC+11, David Wade
<snip>
<snip>
Post by IanD
They are even embarking upon mainframe training programs, such is the
renewed focus on the mainframe for the areas where it excels. It's
certainly not being treated as a dinosaur
As a general concept, if one needs some capability, training is an option.
Also
an option when VMS capable people are needed.
As a reminder:

VSI Training:
<https://training.vmssoftware.com/>

Kerry
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Simon Clubley
2020-12-09 18:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
But very few with the mindset needed for a production quality server
operating system, including stable releases and long term support.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-09 18:30:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
But very few with the mindset needed for a production quality server
operating system, including stable releases and long term support.
True. But there are a few.

And likely some new will enter the market to fill the gap.

Arne
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-11 00:09:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
But very few with the mindset needed for a production quality server
operating system, including stable releases and long term support.
True. But there are a few.
And likely some new will enter the market to fill the gap.
https://rockylinux.org/

Arne
David Wade
2020-12-11 08:13:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
But very few with the mindset needed for a production quality server
operating system, including stable releases and long term support.
True. But there are a few.
And likely some new will enter the market to fill the gap.
https://rockylinux.org/
Arne
The trouble is they come and go. You have no idea how long each will last.
Whitebox started well and faded away...

https://www.whiteboxlinux.org/

the great problem with linux is not that there are 1000 distributions
but that there are no free distributions that stay on the same path.

Dave
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-11 14:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Wade
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
But very few with the mindset needed for a production quality server
operating system, including stable releases and long term support.
True. But there are a few.
And likely some new will enter the market to fill the gap.
https://rockylinux.org/
The trouble is they come and go. You have no idea how long each will last.
Whitebox started well and faded away...
https://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
the great problem with linux is not that there are 1000 distributions
but that there are no free distributions that stay on the same path.
Changes happens. Volunteers get other interests. Corporate sponsors
get other priorities.

But changes can happen to commercial software as well. The vendor
change strategy and ditch certain platforms or certain features.

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-12-11 17:33:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by David Wade
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
But very few with the mindset needed for a production quality server
operating system, including stable releases and long term support.
True. But there are a few.
And likely some new will enter the market to fill the gap.
https://rockylinux.org/
The trouble is they come and go. You have no idea how long each will last.
Whitebox started well and faded away...
https://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
the great problem with linux is not that there are 1000 distributions
but that there are no free distributions that stay on the same path.
Changes happens. Volunteers get other interests. Corporate sponsors
get other priorities.
But changes can happen to commercial software as well. The vendor
change strategy and ditch certain platforms or certain features.
The way I see it, there is a great difference.

Volunteers cannot be counted upon. They have no large financial
interest in seeing a project through to completion. They can have
financial reasons, such as a mortgage payment, for not continuing on a
project.

Commercial vendors "usually" have a business plan, have money invested
in completing the plan, and have need of the customers.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Snowshoe
2020-12-11 00:06:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Is there a "best" current Linux distribution? Meaning stable, not loaded
with junk or glitz, lots of uses/applications for it. Rather than start
a religious war, how about this: Is there a "Linux for VMS Users"?
Chris
2020-12-11 00:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snowshoe
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Is there a "best" current Linux distribution? Meaning stable, not loaded
with junk or glitz, lots of uses/applications for it. Rather than start
a religious war, how about this: Is there a "Linux for VMS Users"?
Not so demanding as some, but Suse Linux always seemed very
professional. Same league as Red Hat fwics. A Debian
fan years ago, but the most recent edition tried here is
Devuan, a Debian fork that takes out systemd. I dropped
Linux for good after the systemd trainwreck.

Main s/w dev machine here is FreeBSD 12, but also Solaris for the
lab server...

Chris
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-11 00:57:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snowshoe
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Is there a "best" current Linux distribution? Meaning stable, not loaded
with junk or glitz, lots of uses/applications for it. Rather than start
a religious war, how about this: Is there a "Linux for VMS Users"?
Lots of options.

I have preferred CentOS for a long time, but I will need to find
something else myself. :-(

I have never liked Ubuntu or SUSE.

Based on what you are looking for then maybe
Arch Linux or Gentoo would be good choices.

Note that I have not used them myself, so
my recommendation is based on hearsay.

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-12-11 01:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snowshoe
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Is there a "best" current Linux distribution? Meaning stable, not loaded
with junk or glitz, lots of uses/applications for it. Rather than start
a religious war, how about this: Is there a "Linux for VMS Users"?
Ah, NO! At least this VMS user.

However, since we're already off to topic, I will allow that this
WEENDOZE user is pretty fed up with WEENDOZE 10 and wondering if there
is a *ux for this WEENDOZE user.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Arne Vajhøj
2020-12-11 02:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
However, since we're already off to topic, I will allow that this
WEENDOZE user is pretty fed up with WEENDOZE 10 and wondering if there
is a *ux for this WEENDOZE user.
General desktop'ish distros: Ubuntu or Linux Mint

Specific Windows like: Zorin OS or ChaletOS

Again: no experience (except Ubuntu) just hear say.

Arne
MG
2020-12-13 14:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
However, since we're already off to topic, I will allow that this
WEENDOZE user is pretty fed up with WEENDOZE 10 and wondering if there
is a *ux for this WEENDOZE user.
Ever tried Manjaro?

Long ago I hoped that Debian/kBSD would gain some traction, as
it's based on some novel ideas, but it never went beyond the
experimental phase (and things like ZFS have started to become
available in mainstream Linux distributions over time).

- MG
Henry Crun
2020-12-11 02:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Is there a "best" current Linux distribution? Meaning stable, not loaded with junk or glitz, lots of uses/applications
for it. Rather than start a religious war, how about this: Is there a "Linux for VMS Users"?
As a past and current VMS user:
I've been using Ubuntu at home since Warty 5.5, now at 20.04, setup and tuned to my satisfaction.
Did not like some of the things Canonical saw fit to push out e.g. an automatic connection to Amazon (now gone by
popular demand) and snap packages (which I removed) but being used to DCL made it easy to learn CLI.

Good luck, and welcome.
--
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before
and: http://alpha.mike-r.com/jargon/T/top-post.html
Missile address: N31.7624/E34.9691
Hunter Goatley
2020-12-11 17:39:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Henry Crun
I've been using Ubuntu at home since Warty 5.5, now at 20.04, setup
and tuned to my satisfaction.
Did not like some of the things Canonical saw fit to push out e.g. an
automatic connection to Amazon (now gone by popular demand) and snap
packages (which I removed) but being used to DCL made it easy to learn
CLI.
I've been using Ubuntu for years, but only on headless servers. I love
it, and I find it much nicer to use than CentOS.

My affinity for Ubuntu was cemented when I bought some Pine A64+ systems
(like Raspberry Pi systems, but different manufacturer). Armbian
provides an Ubuntu distribution for the Pine that has been rock solid
for me.

When I had Linux installed on a laptop a few years ago, I chose Linux
Mint and was happy with it. That provides a much nicer GUI than what
Canonical provides with Ubuntu, IMO.
--
Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/
***@goatley.com http://hunter.goatley.com/
Scott Dorsey
2020-12-11 19:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snowshoe
Is there a "best" current Linux distribution? Meaning stable, not loaded
with junk or glitz, lots of uses/applications for it. Rather than start
a religious war, how about this: Is there a "Linux for VMS Users"?
What you want is NetBSD.

A couple years back I would have recommended Centos, but Centos is rapidly
going in weird directions. Slackware is excellent but doesn't have a lot
of support from third party vendors. Matlab will run on slackware, but if
it fails to run, Mathworks will be of no help.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Neil Rieck
2020-12-11 21:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
My employer uses RHEL for all customer-facing production platforms and CentOS for everything else (this includes everything from development, customer acceptance, employee hands-on training, etc). In fact, my employer was using CentOS as on on-ramp for driving projects onto RHEL platforms. It appears that IBM has thrown a monkey-wrench into those plans.

I have no idea what the future holds but history can be instructive. Recall that when Michael Widenius and others didn't like where SUN was taking MySQL, they created MariaDB (that decision seems fortuitous after Oracle acquired SUN; then promised the EU not to kill MySQL; then slowed MySQL bug fixes for more than a year until they noticed that "a lot" of people in the Linux community were preferentially installing MariaDB)

If CentOS just received a death sentence from IBM then perhaps Rocky Linux is the MariaDB equivalent

https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/rocky_linux/

Neil Rieck
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
http://neilrieck.net
Stephen Hoffman
2020-12-12 19:55:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Snowshoe
Is there a "best" current Linux distribution? Meaning stable, not
loaded with junk or glitz, lots of uses/applications for it. Rather
than start a religious war, how about this: Is there a "Linux for VMS
Users"?
What you want is NetBSD.
Best? That depends greatly on your particular requirements and goals
and budget and expectations and experience, as per usual...

Locally, a mix of macOS, iOS, and iPadOS, and BSD, Synology servers,
with Kali Linux and one or two other Linux distros.

macOS client and the now-deprecated macOS Server were the replacement
for OpenVMS.

macOS greatly exceeds the capabilities of OpenVMS used as a client.
This also with iOS and iPadOS for mobile usage.

The now-deprecated macOS server network-service functions are being
migrated to Synology servers, for what isn't already hosted.

Hosting options include public servers, and environments that can run
on your own hardware.

For those using CentOS, Rocky Linux, and likely soon some others will
be available.

Related:
https://www.kali.org (security-related tooling. also see BlackArch.)
https://rockylinux.org
https://www.archlinux.org
https://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/intro.html
https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/packages
https://nextcloud.com (fork from owncloud)
https://www.truenas.com
--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
Neil Rieck
2020-12-11 21:28:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/centos_red_hat/
Fortunately, at least in the Unix/Linux world, there are always
other options.
Supposedly there are about 1000 Linux distros.
Arne
People in the open source world are fond of sites like this one:

https://distrowatch.com/

Neil Rieck
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
http://neilrieck.net
El SysMan
2020-12-23 12:26:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
VMS bigots cry for dead of yet another kit of the the snaik-oil-OS ... LOL
So nice ... oldboys :-)

PS : Get the Devuan and go away of troubles.
Bob Eager
2020-12-23 15:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El SysMan
Post by Simon Clubley
IBM (who now own Red Hat) has just effectively killed CentOS for
VMS bigots cry for dead of yet another kit of the the snaik-oil-OS ...
LOL So nice ... oldboys :-)
PS : Get the Devuan and go away of troubles.
I use FreeBSD. I have used some flavour of BSD since the late 1970s.
Before that, Sixth Edition.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor
Loading...