On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:29 AM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:18 AM Mark Mielke mark.mielke@gmail.com wrote:
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.
If this was true - then RHEL could also abandon minor releases. This is not how vendors certify that their products work with RHEL, and it will be a major problem for CentOS 8 Stream, just as it would be a major problem for an RHEL 8 Stream (which is what CentOS 8 Stream should be!). I don't believe that the CentOS board or the Red Hat management team are innocent and unaware of this. Messaging such as "if you require a stable release, you must buy RHEL" makes it clear what is really going on here. CentOS 8 is being eliminated as part of a determined business strategy. It is predatory. Allowing CentOS 8 Stream to exist only if CentOS 8 is destroyed, under legal threat, is essentially defeat. It is saying "you can only exist if you do not provide the same product we do".
Well, I would certainly be happy if Red Hat dropped minor releases from RHEL. Officially, Red Hat advises ISVs to not target specific minor releases already, and that compatibility is assured by following reasonable practices and the documentation around ABI guarantees in RHEL.
The problem is that 10 years is a very long time to require both source and binary, forwards and backwards compatibility, and without point releases - you essentially have no ability to introduce changes to interfaces. And this includes, no ability to upgrade important packages. It might be possible with some system whereby packages are built statically, or multiple versions of libraries (both source and binaries) are installed in parallel, or containers are used to run programs in the environments they were designed for. But, that's not what we have with RHEL or CentOS today. What we have today, is a system where feature changes are introduced in new minor releases, and important patches are introduced in channels. Point releases exist for an important reason. They might introduce effort for contributors, but they also reduce risk for users, and they provide a baseline for certification.
I think *if* RHEL abandoned minor releases, then the CentOS problem would disappear as a problem on its own. However, this would then re-introduce the problem that:
1. CentOS 8 would be a direct competitor for RHEL 8, which is very likely the reason why this change is being introduced in the first place. 2. Users might not agree. RHEL 8 without point releases is not a valid option, for the same reason that CentOS 8 without point releases is not an option. Feature changes could arrive any day, and break Enterprises every day.
I think abandoning point releases, is basically abandoning RHEL's bread and butter. I can't see it happening. It doesn't matter what ISV think or which path is easier for ISV.
Also, I don't mean that judgmentally on you... it also doesn't matter what I think. My contribution here is only to ensure a few additional points are captured. I have no confidence that my contribution will change the outcome. :-)