New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
How popular is Rocky Linux among providers?
I am considering using it as the base OS for Kubernetes clusters created with my new product Cluster Ninja. I am testing it now with Hetzner since it's available as one of the default OS images but how popular is it with other providers? Is it a safe bet or should I stick say with Debian?
In an ideal world I would prefer using MicroOS for this, but obviously it's almost never available as default image.
Any alternative worth considering for running only containers that is popular with providers?
Comments
There is Talos project that specifies only for k8s, you definetely should try it.
https://www.talos.dev/
Since k8s "ideally" should not be managed manually you have to stay with production-ready images.
Personally I've more faith in AlmaLinux. Time will tell I suppose.
That makes things even more difficult. Talos is not available as OS image even with Hetzner and a couple of other providers I have checked. The question I am trying to answer is: what is an OS that is supported out of the box by most providers and is stable?
Never tried but I just saw that Hetzner Cloud has it so I can give it a try. How popular is it among providers?
I don't know if that helps but most of our clients with dedicated servers prefer almalinux or Ubuntu. These are the two most popular choices of our clients.
Like Rocky, it's one of the leading Centos alternatives. I like the way they operate better than rocky. Both are quite popular.
Thanks, I am going to try creating a cluster with AlmaLinux next.
debian thx
+1
From our side the situation is a bit different - Debian is the most popular
ubuntu gets a lot of criticism because of flatpaks but imho they're a big advantage for servers. Everything is contained, so no dependency hell. Each service can be sandboxed. Quick updates. etc
Between Debian and Rocky/Alma which one would you pick for the type of service I am building? To give context, I have almost exclusively used Debian and Ubuntu over the years (apart from CentOS a little, years ago).
Debian or Ubuntu, as they're the ones you know
I want to use what can be the better default, not something just because it's what I am used to.
Stick with Debian. The main reason to pick Rocky or Alma is if you're used to running on RHEL derivatives e.g. CentOS.
Debian doesn't have any questionmarks over long term maintenance. Redhat are throwing rocks at Alma, rocky and oracle to see what sticks. They're aiming at Oracle but the others are impacted too.
Uhm you are in two already to suggest I stick with Debian. I guess I need to reconsider
I agree. If you haven't identified any specific reasons to switch, then don't
It seems to me the most popular OS by our customers are Debian and Ubuntu, my personal choice is Debian.
OK, I will stick with Debian then. Thanks everyone!
I'd say at least 70% of our client base uses ubuntu / deb. It used to be about 50/50 with CentOS.
I think the question is wrong. It should be how popular is x among USERS.
The providers will offer what their user base demands. It is not the job of the provider to create a trend or advocate for this and that (apart from security good practices).
Ask for an ISO and thou shalt receive in most cases. Even if you don't, it would still show there is a bit of a demand out there and the second person asking might get their wish granted. Or the third.
According to a survey I did on a vps forum.
more than 90% of people use debian/ubuntu.
Not many people use Centos/Rocky anymore.
How are they going to maintain 1:1 compatibility with redhat is the question. Did you considered that aspect?
Well, for me Debian is THE Linux distro. It does everything I want it to do and even when it doesn't, I have Devuan and other forks.
I started with Slackware back in 1994 or so, just because it was on a CD from CHIP magazine (neatly split in floppies so I could use the CD-ROM at work to make my floppies). I went through Red Hat, Mandrake and SUSE for a while, then I discovered Debian cca 2000 and never looked back. It was different at first, but after a few days I already setup a server on a 486 DX2 66 I had laying around with a bigfoot 5.25" HDD and setup a desktop exactly as I wanted it.
Debian has everything needed and, while it does lack some easy tools Ubuntu has, you can always compile your own everything, there is a lot of documentation and I "feel" like it is written for me somehow.
It's either you go balls deep with RHEL, or just stay free using Debian.
Rocky, Alma, CentOS Stream are still meme-tier at this point. the future is uncertain, and the end is nigh.
I'm not really aware of exactly what your project does so does may or may not be feasible, but why not make your project totally os independent if possible?
Make it run on Debian, Ubuntu, Rocky, Alma or whatever. Sure, there is extra work in packaging for different package managers, but if you just keep your code os independent people might pick it up and package it for you.
Alma for sure, hardly any requests to install rocky on new orders here. Centos pushed a lot of people to deb/ubuntu
Ive only come across it as an option a handful of times. I see Alma much more often as an included option. Rocky is only a few months younger, so i guess based on that it's not too popular.
Personally it's Ubuntu or Debian for me. Only reason is i'm used to the commands, still have to google them mind..
Debian is much of a blank-slate compared to all the RHEL derivatives. Can you implement your own mandatory access control, firewall, hardening yourself and do it well? Then Debian is fantastic. Are you not expert-level at system administration? Then RHEL/Alma/Rocky/Oracle is for you because you get batteries included (as long as you don't disable it when some random article tells you to disable SELinux as step 0 to doing something). Don't care or it's a hobby thing? Choose what you know.
As for Alma vs Rocky, I personally prefer Alma because it's run by a true non-profit. It exists so corporations that used to rely on CentOS can continue to provide their products and services to customers without having to share profits with upstream (RH/IBM). They have good reason to stay non-profit. Rocky is not technically a non-profit and I think that's because ultimately its goals are to offer paid services (otherwise why not just make a real non-profit to own it?). Rocky was started by the guy who started CentOS and he seems like a decent guy but does CentOS really have a good track record; he abandoned CentOS and now he's back. I'll stick with Alma (or really Debian
).
Another thing to consider is with the recent attempts by RH/IBM to limit distribution of RHEL packages, Alma decided they would now be binary-compatible with RHEL while Rocky seems to be dedicated to continuing the higher standard of bug-for-bug-compatible. The jury is still out on Alma's approach but it's fair to say Rocky's model is more proven before we have a few years of Alma's approach to judge.
Ubuntu has snapd which is a proprietary server technology. That's not cool as far as us open source nerds are concerned. Flatpaks are Red Hat's thing and they are totally open source and fantastic. But they focus desktop apps and aren't really something you'll find on a headless server.
https://openela.org/
RH/IBM won't be able to defeat the GPL.