<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/17/2020 12:03 AM, Simon Matter
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:846af3e7f7f0141d6b6a4bfde80d4b8f.squirrel@xxl.corp.invoca.ch">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Le 16/12/2020 à 12:35, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Dec 15, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Karsten Wade <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kwade@redhat.com"><kwade@redhat.com></a> wrote:
On 12/15/20 1:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Whose fault is that? And, to be honest, I never recall such an
expectation ever being vocalized during my tenure @ RedHat (FTR: I was
one of the people inside OSAS who drove the CentOS "acquisition" along
w/ Carl Trieloff).
The whole intent back then was "as long as there is going to be this
huge community of 'free-loading' users out there, they might as well
be under the RHEL/Fedora umbrella, rather than Canonical or
elsewhere." I guess somewhere along the line that changed. The issue
isn't that the situation changed but rather that up until very
recently, promises were still being made and then RedHat backed out of
those promises.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It is actually just as Jason Brooks has spelled out—we needed a
slower-moving platform for our layered projects success. CentOS Linux
was our best bet in 2013, when projects like OpenStack (RDO) and oVirt
were growing and running into pains.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Again, the main concern was that with such layered products, it was
deemed better if instead of people using Canonical, they stayed in the
RedHat family, and officially having CentOS supported as a RedHat
"effort" was the solution.
Yes, people were not going to run OpenStack (or OpenShift) on Fedora,
nor did it make sense to try to fold those directly into RHEL. CentOS
was the "perfect" solution. The goal of SIGs was to determine what
layered products, and in what format, people wanted. But the idea that
CentOS was intended to be a 50/50 bidirectional codebase is simply
rewriting history. The claim that the CentOS community never changed
from what it was, and what RedHat *knew* it was, and what RedHat over
the years (at least publicly) constantly indicated they were 100% happy
about (That CentOS was a community of *users*) just seems like after the
fact justification, with the sole intent of placing the blame ON CENTOS.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
It now seems crystal clear Red Hat purchased CentOS 6 years ago as it
was the best OpenStack infrastructure for their purpose. And the best
value of this CentOS - Red Hat joint effort was not the binary rebuild
of RHEL, but all the additionnal SIGs provided with CentOS 7.
With Red Hat now focused on OpenShift, this golden age as ended and
CentOS Linux wasn't necessary in the suitable form it had always been
for years. This turned in a way that betrayed all the Red Hat promises,
the Community Entreprise OS was first and only interested for.
As in 2003 where Red Hat was the leading distro in the Linux World, the
trust has been broken again and many will flee to Debian or Ubuntu LTS,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Now that you mention 2003, I remember that time and one thing became clear
to me. This new direction with CentOS is most likely inspired from the top
of RedHat. It can only happen with the support of the top management and
it is, if you ask me, inspired by the same people who decided the things
back in 2003. Unfortunately they seem to have missed to realize the
reasons why things have worked back then.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I do wonder if there was some sort of generational change at root
here that has not been made explicit. Or perhaps some underlying
tribal knowledge about how OSS works that failed to get
transmitted? It's easy to make assumptions that stability and
ideology gets passed down automatically, but just like in real
life it takes eternal vigilance to re-instill foundational
concepts.<br>
</p>
<p>I refuse to believe RedHat itself has <i>actually</i> been this
myopic <u>this entire time</u> about its relationship with the
wider Enterprise Linux -derived community, and how this feeds back
into revenue, stability, paid support, certifications, training,
and the all-important "mindshare." Maybe that's just wishful
thinking, though?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/16/2020 4:17 PM, Mark Mielke
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALm7yL2u-v8hfUdkn4ozKQG+Ea-P0mkJQm=nSynpDdFBA=v0WA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:52 PM Mike McGrath <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mmcgrath@redhat.com"><mmcgrath@redhat.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think many of you think that some implicit guarantee was made, or are applying some standard to CentOS similar to what you would a contractual agreement and those will never be the same thing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">This isn't how Free / Open Source projects work. It is not normal for
a community that exists precisely to provide a particular feature, is
"acquired" by a company that claims to have the community interest at
heart, and then leverages this power to replace the product with
something that provides value to the company, and does not directly
compete with company.
I have no doubt of your sincerity. However, I also believe that you
may have been surrounded by other people with similar conflicts of
interest and created a sort of "echo chamber" that after several
months made it seem entirely reasonable to do.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>This reaction was entirely predictable... and I mean *entirely*.
How in the world was this missed? Frankly, this would have hurt
far less if this <i>had</i> been blamed on IBM, and I'm rather
shocked no one above the Board felt the need to push the hard call
UP rather than scapegoat down. That could be the most tone-deaf
thing going on here.</p>
<p>-jc<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>