Please wait...
I've never had rsync's --delete option not work as advertised. That is a
bit on the weird side. I wonder if you can crank the verbosity up to eleven
and have it tell you why it's skipping files.
By the way, if you're not doing this already -- a huge win for backup drives is to put a COW filesystem on them (mooooo) and keep a week of snapshots around.
That way if you accidentally delete something you have up to a week to get it back from an old snapshot. Daily differentials with no storage penalty.
By the way, if you're not doing this already -- a huge win for backup drives is to put a COW filesystem on them (mooooo) and keep a week of snapshots around.
That way if you accidentally delete something you have up to a week to get it back from an old snapshot. Daily differentials with no storage penalty.
Debian admins here will enjoy their popcorn while reading how the Red
Hat ecosystem has a clone war XD
Debian has plenty of clones of its own, so there's really no difference here.
I wish IBM would just switch to the "the download is always free; pay us for support if you want" model that Canonical uses. It would make everyone's world a lot easier. IBM's insistence on making the supported version (and its update channels) a closed-up download is one reason the entire cloud world runs on Ubuntu instead of Red Hat.
I wonder if anyone actually uses Red Hat support, or if close to 100% of their business is the "it isn't real software unless we can pay a vendor" racket.
Meanwhile, it is true that Rocky Linux has become the heir apparent of CentOS.
2023-04-03 12:33 from IGnatius T FoobarDebian admins here will enjoy their popcorn while reading how the Red
Hat ecosystem has a clone war XD
Debian has plenty of clones of its own, so there's really no
difference here.
I wish IBM would just switch to the "the download is always free; pay
us for support if you want" model that Canonical uses. It would make
everyone's world a lot easier. IBM's insistence on making the
supported version (and its update channels) a closed-up download is one
reason the entire cloud world runs on Ubuntu instead of Red Hat.
I wonder if anyone actually uses Red Hat support, or if close to 100%
of their business is the "it isn't real software unless we can pay a
vendor" racket.> Meanwhile, it is true that Rocky Linux has become the heir apparent of
CentOS.
It is true Debian has its clones, but it is a more stable deal: if you want Debian, you use Debian; if you want Debian with support from a vendor, you pick support from Canonical with their Ubuntu.
A friend of mine is a head developer for a product they distribute to ISPs (in fact he got promoted from making it, and now he complains non-stop that they don't let him code anymore). They target Red Hat and use Red Hat, but he has mentioned to me the only Red Hat support they ever ask for is docummentation.
Now a question: why do you think Rocky Linux has become the heir of CentOS instead of, say, Alma Linux?
Now a question: why do you think Rocky Linux has become the heir of
CentOS instead of, say, Alma Linux?
That's easy. When IBM announced that they were making CentOS useless by turning it into another Fedora instead of a guaranteed binary-compatible respin of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the new project Rocky Linux was started by Gregory Kurtzer. He was one of the original founders of CentOS. The other founder was the late Rocky McGaugh.
Hate to say it, but I really don't trust the CloudLinux folks that are behind
AlmaLinux. And I wish I could explain why, just something about how they've
presented the project and how they are moving forward strikes me as off.
No such bad vibes about Rocky Linux. That said, I've been using Debian for
so long for everything outside of $DAYJOB that I'm unlikely to change. But
maybe I can persuade $DAYJOB to give Rocky a try over Ubuntu. We have a pile
of Ubuntu 18.04 that I need to either upgrade or move to something else soon.
2023-04-06 11:28 from fandarel
Hate to say it, but I really don't trust the CloudLinux folks that are
behind AlmaLinux. And I wish I could explain why, just something about
how they've presented the project and how they are moving forward
strikes me as off. No such bad vibes about Rocky Linux. That said,
I've been using Debian for so long for everything outside of $DAYJOB
that I'm unlikely to change. But maybe I can persuade $DAYJOB to give
Rocky a try over Ubuntu. We have a pile of Ubuntu 18.04 that I need to
either upgrade or move to something else soon.
Thanks for the comment. According to the link I posted, Rocky is something Kurtzer's people had been working on as a contingence plan in case of a CentOScalypse (since his company sold services based on CentOS) at the time IBM bought Red Hat.
It reminds me of the Paizo case. Paizo was a publisher of RPG modules that sold adventure modules for Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 under license. When the next Dungeons and Dragons was released in such a way that 3rd party publishers could not release modules for it, Paizo decided to publish their own Dungeons and Dragons clone so they could keep selling adventure modules for it.
You can see a trend here.
Seems sensible enough. Perhaps they knew that IBM Hat would destroy CentOS
and were happy to just "take the money and run". One must wonder why IBM
Hat would even want to buy CentOS in the first place, since it's just a respin
of RHEL, which is itself just a stabilized respin of Fedora.
Or it *was* a respin of RHEL before they changed it to "CentOS Stream". So I guess their intention now is that CentOS is to Debian Testing as Fedora is to Debian Unstable, and if you want "Stable" you pay for RHEL. Let's all chant it in unison: "Fuck off, IBM."
Even ORACLE, the company everyone loves to hate, got it right. Oracle Linux is a respin of RHEL, just like CentOS was and Rocky is, and is delivered using the same business model as Ubuntu (the bits are free, pay us for support if you want to). For an open source operating system (and yes, Linux *is* an operating system; Stallman can go beat and stab himself with a hammer and sickle) it doesn't make sense to have a closed distribution.
Or it *was* a respin of RHEL before they changed it to "CentOS Stream". So I guess their intention now is that CentOS is to Debian Testing as Fedora is to Debian Unstable, and if you want "Stable" you pay for RHEL. Let's all chant it in unison: "Fuck off, IBM."
Even ORACLE, the company everyone loves to hate, got it right. Oracle Linux is a respin of RHEL, just like CentOS was and Rocky is, and is delivered using the same business model as Ubuntu (the bits are free, pay us for support if you want to). For an open source operating system (and yes, Linux *is* an operating system; Stallman can go beat and stab himself with a hammer and sickle) it doesn't make sense to have a closed distribution.
system (and yes, Linux *is* an operating system; Stallman can go beat
and stab himself with a hammer and sickle) it doesn't make sense to
have a closed distribution.
Well, I know what to get him for GravMas now.
But I definitely agree - IBM Hat keeps moving closer and closer to just giving the bits away for free. Last I looked, businesses could run up to 6 RHEL servers at no charge with no support. I'd really like to see them move to the Ubuntu-ish model, but without the kind of naggy crap Ubuntu has been dropping in /etc/motd lately.
it's a shame that centos basically got coopted, but at least we now have supported forks like Amazon Linux that are based on Fedora.
Or one can just use Debian, which is not driven by corporate greed.
Fri Apr 07 2023 10:25:56 AM EDT from fandarelWell, I know what to get him for GravMas now.
But I definitely agree - IBM Hat keeps moving closer and closer to just giving the bits away for free. Last I looked, businesses could run up to 6 RHEL servers at no charge with no support. I'd really like to see them move to the Ubuntu-ish model, but without the kind of naggy crap Ubuntu has been dropping in /etc/motd lately.
2023-04-10 19:40 from Nurb432
Or one can just use Debian, which is not driven by corporate greed.
I keep deploying more and more OpenBSDs around here. However, Linux distributions which have long support cycles are attractive for a number of tasks. A system with 10 years of supported updates sounds nice work workstations because you set them once and you don't have to worry about the machines anymore. The hard drives will crash before you have to upgrade. For workstations used for running one or two core applications a shot-and-forget solution sounds very nice to me.
Yes, *bsd is ok too. Same concept, community driven, not corporate driven. Just the subject was Linux so i stuck with Linux in my statement. And while i'm stuck in the penguin world now due to drivers and some semi-proprietary stuff and just the reality of hardware support ( NVIDIA and CUDA for starters ) i was a huge BSD user decades ago, and still a fan.
And not that companies being involved in a project has to be bad by default, just they cant 'drive' the project.
( That said: OpenBSD, i dislike Theo and dont trust him with his unstable attitude )
Tue Apr 11 2023 11:48:16 AM EDT from darknetuser2023-04-10 19:40 from Nurb432
Or one can just use Debian, which is not driven by corporate greed.
I keep deploying more and more OpenBSDs around here. However, Linux distributions which have long support cycles are attractive for a number of tasks. A system with 10 years of supported updates sounds nice work workstations because you set them once and you don't have to worry about the machines anymore. The hard drives will crash before you have to upgrade. For workstations used for running one or two core applications a shot-and-forget solution sounds very nice to me.
I did, and swore by it for years, until i started running into troubles with WiFi. Then CUDA bit me in the ass next.. and i ended up in the Linux camp as i got tired of fighting with things.
And while i know FBSD has VM kernel tech now too its hard to beat the Proxmox front end for my VM hosts..
Tue Apr 11 2023 01:14:53 PM EDT from LadySerenaKittyI'm a FreeBSD kitty. Using FreeBSD as a daily driver is quite nice, y'all should try it sometime.
rolled out the new Fedora and Linux Kernel 6.1 based "Amazon Linux 2023" to a couple of AWS nodes today.
This went completely smoothly, just had to s/yum/dnf/ and account for one very minor package move.
finger crossed, I suppose, but I see no reason to worry.
LS has just demonstrated why IBM Hat doesn't really matter as much as it used
to. The value of CentOS, Scientific Linux, Oracle Linux, etc. was that it
was "binary compatible with RHEL" at each version number. That was a selling
point in the *old* world, where you bought software packages that were built
to run on a specific operating system. It was a carryover from the era of
proprietary operating systems. Today, software is delivered differently.
If it isn't SaaS, it's containers, or uses more mature compatibility tricks to make it run everywhere.
Today, customers of IBM Hat are (and I could swear I've said this before) either --
1. People who are bound by pointy haired management saying "it has to be from a 'real' vendor with 'real' support"
or
2. Companies who deliberately hire cheap, low-talent sysadmins who only know how to call support instead of solving problems onm their own
I guess #2 is fine because those people are indirectly funding a lot of great development work that goes back into the pool of available software. But I frequently run into #1 and it sometimes makes the best solution too expensive when you add in the unnecessary license costs.
If it isn't SaaS, it's containers, or uses more mature compatibility tricks to make it run everywhere.
Today, customers of IBM Hat are (and I could swear I've said this before) either --
1. People who are bound by pointy haired management saying "it has to be from a 'real' vendor with 'real' support"
or
2. Companies who deliberately hire cheap, low-talent sysadmins who only know how to call support instead of solving problems onm their own
I guess #2 is fine because those people are indirectly funding a lot of great development work that goes back into the pool of available software. But I frequently run into #1 and it sometimes makes the best solution too expensive when you add in the unnecessary license costs.
Cant say its true now as i dont work with that team, but at one point we had #1 .. And worse than RH: "you must use oracle if you want to use Linux on our network"
I always wondered if it was one of
- Kickbacks, either current or future. ( remember where i work, a LOT is driven by that )
- Lack of understanding
- Some sort of backdoor mandate by Oracle to squelch competition since we had lots of their DBs and app-servers..
we had #1 .. And worse than RH: "you must use oracle if you want to
use Linux on our network"
that sounds so much like an early-aughts mentality, from back when people didn't trust Linux.
thankfully, the world has (mostly) changed. with the possible exception of some old shops that didn't get the memo