Why would a company like LinkedIn be using centOS instead of Rhel? Shouldn’t corporations be using the paid version
My guess, they don’t (didn’t) want to pay for support.
Or, more likely, didn’t need to pay for support as they have adequate technical coverage of their needs… Why would you pay for things you aren’t going to be using?
About fucking time. I worked there for 4 years and absolutely hated every time I had to log in to a prod machine. (Which wasn’t very often, but still.)
What did you hate about it? I mean CentOS is fine other than IBM killed it
Mostly that it was an ancient version, so trying to get anything even remotely recent running on it was nearly impossible. But also that even when we upgraded to the next version, all of the libraries were still outdated. It’s like running software that’s old enough to drive.
Yeah that’s the whole Enterprise LTS issue. RHEL is the same, as is Ubuntu after a literal decade of LTS support.
I am so happy that we have podman in RHEL 8. Rootless podman containers with distrobox are a godsend in these software geography dig sites that have to pass for a workshop.
Interesting, considering the company is owned by Microsoft.
Microsoft switching their Azure stack Linux build to their own Azure Linux distro, to me, is less surprising than them not already using it… When they first announced CBL Mariner (the predecessor of Azure Linux), I thought that’s what they were already running.
Linux on Microsoft Azure. Microsoft also contribute to Linux
No successful company would host their stuff on NT. Even Microsoft is aware of that.
