Linux at least in my experience and based on what people have raved about it online is typically rock solid for upgrades, save for a few small experimental distributions, and... Ubuntu which is more and more Windows like every day.
Why exactly is RHEL constantly in the news in terms of upgrading problems, and questions about binary compatibility and the likes? And why the heck is there now a whole separate category of "Upgrade as a Service" from a third party for this?
Linux at least in my experience and based on what people have raved about it online is typically rock solid for upgrades, save for a few small experimental distributions, and... Ubuntu which is more and more Windows like every day.
Why exactly is RHEL constantly in the news in terms of upgrading problems, and questions about binary compatibility and the likes? And why the heck is there now a whole separate category of "Upgrade as a Service" from a third party for this?
It's not a shortcoming of RHEL, it's a nature of the workload.
Not many years ago I worked on control systems, the kinda stuff where code can sit mostly unchanged for 20+ years and the uptime is expected to have multiple 9s since downtime can mean entire companies taking unscheduled time off.
The newer stuff ran on Solaris 10, older on Solaris 8 (I might have seen 7?), and some really new fancy stuff was going onto RHEL 7.
Those kinds of systems sit running happily and doing their thing for years at a time, ro
There's a difference between "it pretty much works when I run 'do-release-upgrade'" and "it's guaranteed that this system will work after we upgrade it." The difference is more apparent when you depend on the system to earn millions or billions of dollars a year.
The problem isn't the OSS packages that come with the system. Those can be and, generally speaking, are all tested by the distro to work with the upgrade. It's the closed-source enterprise software that was built for e.g. RHEL-7, which assumes yo
This reads a bit like an infomercial for Project78, which is an expensive ($549 per server) presumably closed source software as a service. AlmaLinux's ELevate has existed for longer, is free and open source and can convert to more RHEL clones than Project78 can.
Yes, Project78 probably does a better job than ELevate does, but it's still disappointing that Linux Belgium didn't use their expertise to improve ELevate. Users run RHEL clones to avoid expensive fees, so you feel that Project78 really isn't a feas
Thanks for your feedback. We as Linux Belgium are very much committed to the opensource ecosystem - obviously.
And in one of the 2 upgrade methods we provide, we integrate ELevate as one of the many components to upgrade CentOS7 to Rocky Linux 8.
We are in contact with Alma Linux too and plan to become a sponsor of the project, as we already contribute to other Free and OpenSource projects.
Our Project78 software has a much broader perspective than ELevate. We automatically address issues instead of reporti
Linux at least in my experience and based on what people have raved about it online is typically rock solid for upgrades, save for a few small experimental distributions, and ... Ubuntu which is more and more Windows like every day.
Why exactly is RHEL constantly in the news in terms of upgrading problems, and questions about binary compatibility and the likes? And why the heck is there now a whole separate category of "Upgrade as a Service" from a third party for this?
Linux at least in my experience and based on what people have raved about it online is typically rock solid for upgrades, save for a few small experimental distributions, and ... Ubuntu which is more and more Windows like every day.
Why exactly is RHEL constantly in the news in terms of upgrading problems, and questions about binary compatibility and the likes? And why the heck is there now a whole separate category of "Upgrade as a Service" from a third party for this?
It's not a shortcoming of RHEL, it's a nature of the workload.
Not many years ago I worked on control systems, the kinda stuff where code can sit mostly unchanged for 20+ years and the uptime is expected to have multiple 9s since downtime can mean entire companies taking unscheduled time off.
The newer stuff ran on Solaris 10, older on Solaris 8 (I might have seen 7?), and some really new fancy stuff was going onto RHEL 7.
Those kinds of systems sit running happily and doing their thing for years at a time, ro
The problem isn't the OSS packages that come with the system. Those can be and, generally speaking, are all tested by the distro to work with the upgrade. It's the closed-source enterprise software that was built for e.g. RHEL-7, which assumes yo
This reads a bit like an infomercial for Project78, which is an expensive ($549 per server) presumably closed source software as a service. AlmaLinux's ELevate has existed for longer, is free and open source and can convert to more RHEL clones than Project78 can.
Yes, Project78 probably does a better job than ELevate does, but it's still disappointing that Linux Belgium didn't use their expertise to improve ELevate. Users run RHEL clones to avoid expensive fees, so you feel that Project78 really isn't a feas
Our Project78 software has a much broader perspective than ELevate. We automatically address issues instead of reporti