[jake_morrison]

The problem is that RHEL is too expensive for people who don't need support. IBM is getting greedy and screwing up its pipeline.

Our dedicated servers are about $100/month for pretty serious hardware (2 x 8-core CPUs, 64 GB RAM, 2 x 8TB HDD, 30TB transfer). Paying $349/year is a significant percentage of that. It is worse for smaller servers, and ludicrous for small virtual machines in the cloud.

I would not mind throwing them a bone to have e.g. security updates at some reasonable cost. Their official repositories don't have enough packages, so I end up having to use 3rd-party repos for normal things, e.g. Postgres. Having a more full-featured repo of up-to-date software would be useful to me.

I have been running CentOS 7, but when that is no longer supported, I will switch to something else like Ubuntu or Debian, whatever our hosting providers support. I am already using Debian or distroless for containers.

And then RHEL will be completely irrelevant to me. Good job, IBM.

[bonzini]

Red Hat's model is to only ship what they know they can support. For the rest there's EPEL which is community managed.

Canonical's model is to ship the kitchen sink and wing it in case a customer wants support on something that is in a sorry state.

Different customers, different requirements.

[jacooper]

Thats not true with Ubuntu Pro, which includes support for way more packages than RHEL, 10 thousand to be exact, and is much cheaper with more features like included kernel Livepatching.

[bonzini]

I was referring exactly to Ubuntu Pro. They can support more packages for cheaper exactly because Red Hat won't ever have the same YOLO approach to support that Canonical has.

[jacooper]

Did you try their support before coming to such opinions?

[bonzini]

1) Canonical does not have enough testers. As a developer I have seen what kind of bugs are reported on Ubuntu, and some of them denote a serious lack of QA. There are packages in Ubuntu that are almost certainly shipped untested.

2) Canonical does not have enough developers, unless they found a magic recipe by which their relatively few employees know how to fix issues in all these packages while not contributing upstream and while also maintaining mir/upstart/snap whatever their latest fad is. So if you have say a performance regression or a kernel crash or a miscompilation they might just relay that to upstream developers and hope they fix it.

3) Regarding package count, PPAs are basically the same as EPEL or Copr, and are unsupported.

I'm not saying they are bad at support. I'm saying that they are betting on their customer not actually asking them to support some of the things they ship. Red Hat just says "no thanks, feel free to use EPEL or pip but we don't want to touch it".

[jacooper]

Honestly I never use PPAs on Ubuntu, because Ubuntu universe has everything I ever need, and now its supported by Ubuntu PRO.

[genmud]

RHELs model is to support such ancient versions of software that they don't have to support many pieces of software, because the features most people would rely on aren't in 3, 5 or 10 year old software. If it wasn't effectively required (until recently) for most US government use, I would imagine they would have a substantially smaller customer base.

[bonzini]

This is not entirely true; some packages have been removed from RHEL7 to 8 to 9, because the interpretation of "if we ship it we support it" has become stricter. RHEL9 is as new or sometimes newer than Debian 11 (bullseye).

[Beermotor]

RedHat also backports fixes, security patches, and (occasionally) features to existing RPMs without incrementing the minor version.

For example fuzzywhatsit-3.0 in RHEL could be functionally equivalent to 3.5 in another distro.

[yrro]

They even rebase packages to new upstream versions in point releases (where doing so maintains backwards compatibility, of course).