<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/15/20 10:29 AM, Phelps, Matthew
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAB_RH1bdwWy8p-OKV_siEq5RX0PoYCNpAY5W_JLOxvfmhCjQCA@mail.gmail.com">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd also just add that while I find Johnny's
characterization of what happened accurate, Ljubomir took
a couple of leaps that I don't think existed. Red Hat
decided not to continue paying actual money for what was
actively harming us and no longer providing the value that
it once did. No one, not even the board, could force Red
Hat to continue paying for this project which was just not
working for us. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for admitting that the reason Red Hat did this was
financial. This BS about it being "a better way for Community
input into RHEL" is just that, BS.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can we stop with the charade that this is supposed to be a
good thing for the CentOS community? It's not. It was never
intended to be. It's a punishment for us getting "free Red Hat"
all these years.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>That is not a fair characterization of that decision.</p>
<p>Red Hat built up CentOS Stream as a stable LTS distribution. At
some point, a rational person looking at the use cases for CentOS
Stream and CentOS would naturally ask if it makes sense to
continue putting human work hours into producing CentOS when it's
considerably more difficult due to trying to reproduce the exact
state of RHEL's build roots through reverse engineering, and for
that effort, it's worse for 99.(some number of nines)% of users.
There are no security updates for at least two months a year, even
when they're needed. New features (rare as they are) roll out
slower. Support for new hardware rolls out slower.</p>
<p>The vast majority of self-supported deployments would be better
off choosing CentOS Stream, and having both makes that a lot less
clear. Producing CentOS is very expensive, and provides no value
for the vast majority of users. It provides no value to Red Hat,
either. And saying so doesn't mean that Red Hat is making a cash
grab.</p>
<p>Time that engineers spend rebuilding CentOS is time that they
aren't improving CentOS Stream. (This is, very much, a zero-sum
system.) In other words, continuing to make CentOS is a missed
opportunity to make CentOS Stream better, which would have made
RHEL better, which would have made CentOS better. That's what it
means for CentOS to not work *for* Red Hat. Red Hat can provide a
better self-supported distribution by discontinuing effort on
CentOS.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>