“independent” - Is it though?

Redhat are the major sponsors of Fedora, much as they sponsored Centos before taking it over and killing it in classic “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”.

I have doubts about the future of the entire EL ecosphere - I know not many enterprise level organisations are investing deeply into it right now, whether that’s with RHEL or a rebuild. Too much doubt about Redhat’s intentions with RHEL and the future of it.

Have you checked syslog and apts logs?

Also, simply uninstalling and reinstalling Firefox shouldn’t lose all your settings. Silly question, but are you sure you’re the same local user? Also, Firefox syncs this stuff so all sounds odd.

A correct and helpful answer. HA is phenomenal, although some report the learning curve is steep - it’s totally worth it.

I use it with lots of different vendors and it consolidates and coordinates everything between everything else.

Your headline is sensationalist and inaccurate, and your description has only partial truths. You need to appreciate some history to understand that Rocky is not for profit and why. This isn’t anti-Alma, which was founded and is supported by Cloudlinux - a commercial company by the way - because that’s not actually important either.

Rocky Linux is owned by RESF which is owned by Greg Kurtzner, backed by a board of trustees. Greg, together with Jason “Rocky” McGaugh, created CentOS Linux back in 2004. Since then, Redhat “Embraced, extended and then extinguished” CentOS Linux through gaining legal ownership of the project and its name, and control of its board of trustees.

When Redhat (through control of CentOs’ board) finally pulled the rug (with very little notice) on CentOS 8 in 2020, Greg figured he could correct the organisational mistakes made with CentOs that allowed Redhat to kill it. He talks about that here In honour of Jason, who has since died, he named the new distro Rocky.

Rocky must be owned by a legal entity, and they chose a PBC - the reasoning is described very clearly on Rocky’s website here and it’s made clear that it is not for profit. It’s possibly that might change, sure, but somewhere along the line you have to look at the bigger picture and decide to trust a distro. I trust Rocky. I also trust Debian and OpenSuse. And, because they’ve also proved themselves honest and transparent ** despite being founded and sponsored by a commercial company** , I trust Alma. All are good choices. The beautiful part about all these good, open and free distributions is you can choose which you want to use, that you’re not locked into them and whether you want to contribute or not.

There /is/ a link to CiQ with Rocky via Greg, and CiQ is commercial, but Rocky itself is not, is definitely NOT for profit, and there’s no need to pay CiQ a bean if you don’t want to.

Anyone can pick holes in any distribution. They can take any part of the legal structure and present it to suit their own agenda, or misunderstand the whole.

Nah, it’s fine. Boot times are considerably faster than sys.v in most cases, and it has a huge amount of functionality. Most people I work with have adopted it and much prefer it to the old init.d and sys.v systems.

People’s problem with systemd (and there are fewer people strongly against it than before) seem to break down into two groups:

1. They were happy with sys.v and didn’t like change. Some were unhappy with how distros adopted it. (The debian wars in particular were really quite vicious)

2. It does too much. systemd is modular, but even so does break one of the core linux tenets - “do one thing well”. Despite the modularity, it’s easy to see it as monolithic.

But regardless of feelings, systemd has achieved what it set out to do and is the defacto choice for the vast majority of distros, and they adopted it because it’s better. Nobody really cares if a user tries to make a point by not using it any more, they’re just isolating themselves. The battle was fought and systemd won it.