> We will continue to aim to produce an enterprise-grade, long-term distribution of Linux that is aligned and ABI compatible with RHEL in response to our community’s needs, to the extent it is possible to do, and such that software that runs on RHEL will run the same on AlmaLinux.
I'd be interested to know if there are any cases where RHEL have issued a WONTFIX on a bug due to some software relying on the bugged behaviour. Given how much of it is free software, would they really not merge a fix into their releases to keep the bugged behaviour?
Can't imagine issuing WONTFIX but definitely augmenting the behaviour in cases where a bug becomes a feature, the whole long time support business depends on it.
I do think that use cases for Alma users are slightly different, so not having bug-for-bug compatibility might not be a big deal if most of the installed software runs smoothly.
Research center in universities, that some times need to use software for research that is only officially supported in RHEL but that does not have money to keep RHEL licenses.
One of the original RHEL clones was Scientific Linux that was maintained by those organizations for their use.
They dropped because CentOS better at the time and they were doubling effort for something that was already available.
Probably a different group of people, now. The original purpose was "RHEL clone". Now it is "RHEL-like LTS distribution," somewhere mid-stream between CentOS Stream and RHEL.
I help run a (small) HPC at a research institute and know a lot of groups in our community who run alma on their nodes. We went with rocky because we flipped a coin
