Of course! It's easy to forget he was a guard at one of America's most notorious concentration camps, Guantanamo Bay. It's foolish to think of him only as a Fox News personality.
They are not directly comparable. Nebula is a mesh VPN. Wireguard can be used as a building block for a mesh VPN (as it is in Tailscale), but it does not have that function organically.
I have tried Tailscale / Headscale and did not find the overhead worth it. Both can saturate a 10Gbps link and that's all I need right now. Nebula's much simpler to administer. The configuration's spelled out in the client configs and in the certificates you provision. If you're already using some form of configuration management, it's quite easy to make changes. If you require a Web UI, Tailscale / Zerotier / etc may be better. There is a company that provides a Nebula-based service with a Web UI but I haven't tried it.
Nope, it wouldn't have been in RHEL 10 or any of the rebuilds. CentOS Stream 10 already branched from Fedora / ELN. The closest it would have gotten is a Fedora ELN compose, and it's doubtful it would have remained undiscovered long enough to end up in CentOS Stream 11.
Ha, fun to see this again! Back before everything was HTTPS, it was fun to use the Browser Exploitation Framework (https://beefproject.com) which had a script included that did this. Though in those cases I wasn't in control of the gateway, so ARP spoofing was required to get other devices to route through me.
Rocky Linux has /etc/redhat-release as well. Reason being that some software checks that file for version / compatibility information, and we want to avoid breaking it. (They should be checking /etc/os-release, but it is what it is.)
The vagueness is not intentional, it's vague only because at the time it was written we hadn't decided on a particular source. For Rocky Linux, RHEL cloud instances are currently the primary source.
Not every RHEL binary is GPL licensed, but all the packages we distribute have an open source license permitting such redistribution. There are a few left out, for example some Red Hat proprietary artwork, tools, etc.
I often get a bit of a feel of the Monty Python "Nudge Nudge Wink Wink" sketch from talking with folks who think we're doing something legally dubious.
Happily surprised to see this hit the front page! If anyone is interested, I keep track of some statistics regarding Rocky Linux usage at https://rocky-stats.tiuxo.com/auto.html
Note that those statistics are only really useful for determining relative usage of Enterprise Linux distros as it's derived from EPEL logs. I haven't gotten around to attempting to derive statistics from the Rocky Linux logs because it's an intimidating amount of data.
(It's supposed to be automatic, but it seems the GitHub CI is having an issue with one of the dependencies for the past week. Guess now's a good time to fix it, and maybe make the page look more aesthetically pleasing...)
We aim to be as transparent as possible. The only information that we don't share publicly is the obvious stuff (PII, sensitive infrastructure information, etc). The information regarding source access / challenges / etc is available at https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/.
We thank our upstream often, in person, in social media, etc.
We sponsor the Fedora Flock conference, the only opportunity to fiscally support Fedora, and will continue to do so. Same with the CentOS Connect conference. Those checks get written directly to Red Hat, by the way.
Given you work for Red Hat, we can even say we've paid you a little! :)
Projects have always done this, as Red Hat has always been rather litigious and it's unwise to give them any unnecessary ground for legal complaints. The common euphemism has been "Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor" since the early days of CentOS.
Back in 2007, CentOS's self-description was "CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendor's redistribution policy and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork.) CentOS is free".
Can you elaborate how the patches, bug reports, package maintenance, etc, do not benefit the "builders' community"? They all go to the same upstream.
And what exactly do you mean by "builders' community", do you actually mean "Red Hat"?
By "not participate in" do you mean "not pay your employer"? Which we do, actually. Just wired a good chunk of money to Red Hat the other day, ostensibly earmarked for supporting the Fedora project.
Adoption by many large organizations / businesses was also quite fast. And may have even caused us some trouble, I suspect the attention garnered by NASA's use of Rocky Linux had something to do with instigating Red Hat's recent antics.
We participate in the Enterprise Linux community just fine. Our community members report bugs and throw patches at upstream projects, run SIGs creating value for EL, maintain Fedora and EPEL packages, etc.