this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
86 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
8943 readers
425 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or put another way, Red Hat embraces RISC-V and Rocky copies their homework. Rocky is a leech, at least use Alma.
That sounds personal. Why is Alma better than Rocky? I'm just curious and would never switch from my ride or die Debian.
At a quick glance, they just both seem to be spiritual successors to CentOS
It is not personal.
Alma creates a distro that is ABI compatible with RHEL. They start with what is publicly available in CentOS Stream. They can contribute and innovate. They do the work (however much that is).
Rocky finds a way to get a copy of the RHEL source packages and recompiles them into a distro. They can then claim “bug for bug” compatibility with RHEL. They cannot change anything (cannot contribute) because that would weaken their compatibility promise.
I respect Alma.
Rocky is a free rider for money that wears the shield of “community” when it suits them.
Too personal?
Ah, money. From another quick glance: I see.
I honestly would only shit in a Red Hat if I couldn't find a dirty portajohn so I really don't care. I do understand they are very important in Business (ha!ha!)
So is Ubuntu, which is only a side-step away from Debian. But, while I hate dpkg, at least Debian is ethically clean.
Not according to the Free Software Foundation.
Also, Red Hat contributes more GPL code than Debian does.
Redhat, for at least a decade, has focused on services, with which I already said I have no issue. I haven't seen or heard of anyone paying for Redhat just to get a base imagine with no support.
Services like stability, testing, compatibility, security, certification, and documentation?