We would also have to spend an extraordinary amount of work moving off CentOS. We currently run it on production servers and would no longer be able to run it if it was beta. This will affect thousands of CentOS business users who use it because it is stable and not a beta.

Andrea

-----Original Message----- From: CentOS centos-bounces@centos.org On Behalf Of Christopher Wensink Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 8:35 AM To: centos@centos.org Subject: {EXTERNAL} Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-devel] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/

CAUTION:  This email originated outside of BSWH; avoid action unless you know the content is safe. Send suspicious emails as attachments to BadEmail@BSWHealth.org.

I agree this is shocking news.  If we don't want to be beta testers and want to continue to use a stable tested OS should we be moving to RHEL servers?  Is there a license-free RHEL server option that is the recommended path from using CentOS?

Chris

On 12/8/2020 8:32 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

This is really, really bad for the majority of us using CentOS.

Is there any way we can lobby for the reversal of this decision? Remember that the -devel mailing list, and IRC channels *do not* represent the vast majority of CentOS users. Most of us are just sysadmins trying to keep our systems that have been using CentOS for many, many years running and our procedures for installing, and patching systems working after whatever changes have been mysteriously decided upon, and forced on us.

We will be forced to look at other distributions now; and forced to do a ton of unnecessary work to deal with this.

Thanks a lot.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

...

The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream, and over the next year we’ll be shifting focus from CentOS Linux, the rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), to CentOS Stream, which tracks just ahead of a current RHEL release. CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end at the end of 2021. CentOS Stream continues after that date, serving as the upstream (development) branch of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Meanwhile, we understand many of you are deeply invested in CentOS Linux 7, and we’ll continue to produce that version through the remainder of the RHEL 7 life cycle. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/ updates/errata/*Life_Cycle_Dates__;Iw!!JA_k2roV-A!UcTJONdzRw91iWPOPbI BOfyPCTEVw0n6aihwrcaaP0xx4AM5TH5uOcLw9UL5CTiBsA$

CentOS Stream will also be the centerpiece of a major shift in collaboration among the CentOS Special Interest Groups (SIGs). This ensures SIGs are developing and testing against what becomes the next version of RHEL. This also provides SIGs a clear single goal, rather than having to build and test for two releases. It gives the CentOS contributor community a great deal of influence in the future of RHEL. And it removes confusion around what “CentOS” means in the Linux distribution ecosystem.

When CentOS Linux 8 (the rebuild of RHEL8) ends, your best option will be to migrate to CentOS Stream 8, which is a small delta from CentOS Linux 8, and has regular updates like traditional CentOS Linux releases. If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not meet your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Hat about options.

We have an FAQ - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://centos.org/distro-faq/__;!!JA_k2r oV-A!UcTJONdzRw91iWPOPbIBOfyPCTEVw0n6aihwrcaaP0xx4AM5TH5uOcLw9ULXK7HrAw$ - to help with your information and planning needs, as you figure out how this shift of project focus might affect you.

[See also: Red Hat's perspective on this.

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/centos-str eam-building-innovative-future-enterprise-linux__;!!JA_k2roV-A!UcTJON dzRw91iWPOPbIBOfyPCTEVw0n6aihwrcaaP0xx4AM5TH5uOcLw9ULz5qn9vg$ ]

---

CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo /centos-devel__;!!JA_k2roV-A!UcTJONdzRw91iWPOPbIBOfyPCTEVw0n6aihwrcaa P0xx4AM5TH5uOcLw9UKTDKBGAA$

-- Christopher Wensink IS Administrator Five Star Plastics, Inc 1339 Continental Drive Eau Claire, WI 54701 Office: 715-831-1682 Mobile: 715-563-3112 Fax: 715-831-6075 cwensink@five-star-plastics.com https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.five-star-plastics.com__;!!JA_k2roV-A...

_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos...

********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure, and no waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other privilege is intended. If you are the intended recipient, further disclosures are prohibited without proper authorization. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden and possibly a violation of federal or state law and regulations. The sender and Baylor Scott & White Health, and its affiliated entities, hereby expressly reserve all privileges and confidentiality that might otherwise be waived as a result of an erroneous or misdirected e-mail transmission. No employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of Baylor Scott & White Health, or any affiliated entity, by e-mail without express written confirmation by the CEO, the Senior Vice President of Supply Chain Services or other duly authorized representative of Baylor Scott & White Health.

Le 09/12/2020 à 10:46, Andrea Biscuola a écrit :

CentOS was _always_ a best effort project done on a volunteer basis, if it was stable enough to build a company on top of it, good! But always remember that, in the end, you are getting what you paid for.

Red Hat is a company built on top of a series of best effort projects done on a volunteer basis.

:o)

How many of us, complaining here about a supposed "breach of trust", are involved in making CentOS better and not just taking what others do and make money on top of it? I never participated in anything CentOS related, I happily use it but you should know what you are buying when you choose to use a (once) volunteer- based project.

It's your own problem. I have opened at least 10 bugs on CentOS's bugzilla and at least 30-40 (not counting the docu )bugs on RH's bugzilla providing necessary details for identifying bugs and misconfiguration.

Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov

LOL, laughing with you not at you, license free RHEL. Just RHEL (IBM) wanting to increase the coffers for RHEL. I know, I know thats not whats really happening but yeah that is what is really happening. If you want a tested production worthy server install based on RHEL then you will have to pay for RHEL. I know this is exaggerating but if I wanted to test pre-production stuff I could just run Fedora. ;)

Oh well end of an era...sniff.

servers? Is there a license-free RHEL server option that is the

recommended path from using CentOS?

Chris

On 12/8/2020 8:32 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

This is really, really bad for the majority of us using CentOS.

Is there any way we can lobby for the reversal of this decision? Remember that the -devel mailing list, and IRC channels *do not* represent the

vast

...

majority of CentOS users. Most of us are just sysadmins trying to keep

our

...

systems that have been using CentOS for many, many years running and our procedures for installing, and patching systems working after whatever changes have been mysteriously decided upon, and forced on us.

We will be forced to look at other distributions now; and forced to do a ton of unnecessary work to deal with this.

Thanks a lot.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

...

The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream, and over the next year we’ll be shifting focus from CentOS Linux, the rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), to CentOS Stream, which tracks just ahead of a current RHEL release. CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end at the end of 2021. CentOS Stream continues after that date, serving as the upstream (development) branch of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Meanwhile, we understand many of you are deeply invested in CentOS Linux 7, and we’ll continue to produce that version through the remainder of the RHEL 7 life cycle.

https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/#Life_Cycle_Dates

...

...

CentOS Stream will also be the centerpiece of a major shift in collaboration among the CentOS Special Interest Groups (SIGs). This ensures SIGs are developing and testing against what becomes the next version of RHEL. This also provides SIGs a clear single goal, rather than having to build and test for two releases. It gives the CentOS contributor community a great deal of influence in the future of RHEL. And it removes confusion around what “CentOS” means in the Linux distribution ecosystem.

When CentOS Linux 8 (the rebuild of RHEL8) ends, your best option will be to migrate to CentOS Stream 8, which is a small delta from CentOS Linux 8, and has regular updates like traditional CentOS Linux releases. If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not meet your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Hat about options.

We have an FAQ - https://centos.org/distro-faq/ - to help with your information and planning needs, as you figure out how this shift of project focus might affect you.

[See also: Red Hat's perspective on this.

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/centos-stream-building-innovative-future-ente...

...

...

]

---

CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

-- Christopher Wensink IS Administrator Five Star Plastics, Inc 1339 Continental Drive Eau Claire, WI 54701 Office: 715-831-1682 Mobile: 715-563-3112 Fax: 715-831-6075 cwensink@five-star-plastics.com www.five-star-plastics.com

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 9.12.2020 0.38, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 08:34:54AM -0600, Christopher Wensink wrote:

Is it possible that more regressions will get through than have before? Well, sure, some. But let's not pretend that even RHEL is ever regression-free. It's software, after all, and there are bugs and errata. I don't think that for most self-supported CentOS use, it will be particularly dangerous to switch to Stream at all.

It might or it might not. But you can't say to people in good faith anymore that it will be as stable as the current RHEL release.

And if your use case isn't covered by one of the upcoming low- and no-cost programs, and you can't take the risk or the possible increased change management overhead, or for some other reason... well, is it _really_ so bad for companies to pay for RHEL? (I like my family to be able to eat, so I'm a bit biased.... but all of this has to come from something.)

I have recommended CentOS to my customers as way to get going and also recommended getting the subscription for RHEL when possible afterwards.

After the change I lost my last argument for not going to Ubuntu LTS instead. Lot of companies I deal with have already done that. Problem is that with Ubuntu being in developers/users workstations that is what people mainly want without good arguments for something different.

This might serve the way to reduce amount of RHEL subscriptions in future. If this will happen, that I don't know. What I do know is that I don't have any arguments left for getting people started on RHEL/CentOS route.

-vpk

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 09:15:40AM +0200, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote:

...

Is it possible that more regressions will get through than have before? Well, sure, some. But let's not pretend that even RHEL is ever regression-free. It's software, after all, and there are bugs and errata. I don't think that for most self-supported CentOS use, it will be particularly dangerous to switch to Stream at all.

It might or it might not. But you can't say to people in good faith anymore that it will be as stable as the current RHEL release.

Define stable. For most practical definitions of that and for most use cases, it absolutely will be. For some it won't be, but I think there will be few actual cases where it won't be _and_ CentOS Linux rather than RHEL _was_ acceptable.

I have recommended CentOS to my customers as way to get going and also recommended getting the subscription for RHEL when possible afterwards.

I don't see why that would change. Or you may be able to get them started on RHEL in some new cases.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:42 AM Rainer Duffner rainer@ultra-secure.de wrote:

...

Am 08.12.2020 um 15:32 schrieb Phelps, Matthew <mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu :

This is really, really bad for the majority of us using CentOS.

Of course it is.

...

Is there any way we can lobby for the reversal of this decision? Remember that the -devel mailing list, and IRC channels *do not* represent the

vast

...

majority of CentOS users. Most of us are just sysadmins trying to keep

our

...

systems that have been using CentOS for many, many years running and our procedures for installing, and patching systems working after whatever changes have been mysteriously decided upon, and forced on us.

We will be forced to look at other distributions now; and forced to do a ton of unnecessary work to deal with this.

The reality is that it was always on borrowed time.

Getting RHEL without paying for it and with slight delays in updates (most people don’t even update that often anyway) wasn’t going to be sustainable, ever.

If your business case resolves around being able to freeload on the work of others, then there’s a serious problem with the business case.

I DO NOT WORK FOR A BUSINESS!! (Yes, I'm yelling. Sorry, but I am well and truly pissed off!) We have no budget for RHEL.

And I say that as somebody who has installed a large portion of the CentOS8 (and 7) servers at work.

Not sure what we ourselves are going to do about it, though.

I would hate to switch to Ubuntu for the stuff I like CentOS most for (for some, it’s arguably not the greatest distro).

We might end up licensing RHEL for that - and the rest maybe Fedora.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 09/12/2020 07:16, Kingsly John wrote:

A non-paying CentOS user is not a real loss for RHEL. But people dumping CentOS for a non-RHEL clone is definitely going to impact their future revenues as they are losing mindshare/goodwill/easy migration etc.

And worse: Without CentOS being used widely (junior) admins will have even less experience dealing with RHEL. This will result in lower quality deployments of RHEL, reducing overall security of those systems and it will reduce RHEL adoption, hitting RH/IBM where it hurts them most.

I am seeing this in practice already with juniors - they all use Ubuntu on their personal systems and they hate having to deal with RHEL. And their opinions matter in the long run.

peter

On 09/12/2020 09:26, centos@niob.at wrote:

On 09/12/2020 07:16, Kingsly John wrote:

...

A non-paying CentOS user is not a real loss for RHEL. But people dumping CentOS for a non-RHEL clone is definitely going to impact their future revenues as they are losing mindshare/goodwill/easy migration etc.

And worse: Without CentOS being used widely (junior) admins will have even less experience dealing with RHEL. This will result in lower quality deployments of RHEL, reducing overall security of those systems and it will reduce RHEL adoption, hitting RH/IBM where it hurts them most.

I am seeing this in practice already with juniors - they all use Ubuntu on their personal systems and they hate having to deal with RHEL. And their opinions matter in the long run.

peter

And exactly the same applies to senior (or retired) admins on their home computers. My main home machine runs about a dozen testbed VMs, DHCP/DNS for the home network, Amanda, NFS and Samba for other machines, ownCloud, Apache, Zotero and DokuWiki for the family. I want a stable server under that lot, not a beta release.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:59 AM mark m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:

Oh, that's right, it's 2020, the dumpster fire of a year.

On 12/9/20 4:40 AM, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:

...

On 09/12/2020 09:26, centos@niob.at wrote:

...

On 09/12/2020 07:16, Kingsly John wrote:

...

A non-paying CentOS user is not a real loss for RHEL. But people

dumping

...

...

...

CentOS for a non-RHEL clone is definitely going to impact their future revenues as they are losing mindshare/goodwill/easy migration etc.

<snip>>

...

...

I am seeing this in practice already with juniors - they all use Ubuntu on their personal systems and they hate having to deal with RHEL. And their opinions matter in the long run.

And exactly the same applies to senior (or retired) admins on their home computers. My main home machine runs about a dozen testbed VMs, DHCP/DNS for the home network, Amanda, NFS and Samba for other machines, ownCloud, Apache, Zotero and DokuWiki for the family. I want a stable server under that lot, not a beta release.

Retired sr. Linux admin here also, also running CentOS at home. Moved to 7 this past summer (really dislike sstemd, hung onto 6 as long as possible).

What I find outright offensive is that I see someone posted the specs for the Board... and #2 was "community outreach".

Can someone point me to a post, ONE SINGLE POST, before this announcement, saying that this was being considered? That this might possibly happen?

Show me that this was not just presented to the community as a fait accompli, non-negotiable.

    mark

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Hear! HEAR!

NOBODY asked.

Am 09.12.2020 um 17:15 schrieb Neil Thompson albiorix@gmail.com:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 18:06, Phelps, Matthew mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu wrote:

...

Hear! HEAR!

NOBODY asked.

OK. We get it. We all get it loud and clear. You're pissed off.

There's two things you can do about that -

1. accept reality and start making plans to deal with it, or
2. continue to whine and lash out at people who are probably feeling worse

about the situation than you are, in which case I have to question whether you actually have the maturity to be able to administer a single machine, let alone any kind of IT facility.

I think it is nonetheless not needed to start insulting people.

We should try to keep the discussion friendly and technical.

On 12/9/20 10:26 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

We *are* a community, and we should be heard.

Absolutrly

On 12/9/20 11:15 AM, Neil Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 18:06, Phelps, Matthew mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu wrote:

...

Hear! HEAR!

NOBODY asked.

OK. We get it. We all get it loud and clear. You're pissed off.

There's two things you can do about that -

1. accept reality and start making plans to deal with it, or
2. continue to whine and lash out at people who are probably feeling worse

about the situation than you are, in which case I have to question whether you actually have the maturity to be able to administer a single machine, let alone any kind of IT facility.

Cheers! (Relax, have a homebrew) _______________________________________________

I see, so your response to WHY DIDN'T YOU POST HERE, AND EVEN LET EVERYONE KNOW THIS WAS BEING CONSIDERED?! is "sorry you're pissed, tough"... no apology for NOT WARNING US, no nothing.

"Community"? Obviously you left us behind.

mark

Understanding the flow of packages, is it a fair comparison to say that moving forward: Fedora packages could be considered alpha/beta releases of apps Centos/Stream could be considered beta / Pre-release / Release candidates of packages / partially stable RHEL official releases would be considered final release / stable

Where as before (done 12/2021) Fedora Packages would be beta / pre-release then RHEL and CentOS were final release / stable  - one with commercial support and the other with community only support.

Is that accurate?

On 12/9/2020 12:54 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 09:40:22AM +0000, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:

...

And exactly the same applies to senior (or retired) admins on their home computers. My main home machine runs about a dozen testbed VMs, DHCP/DNS for the home network, Amanda, NFS and Samba for other machines, ownCloud, Apache, Zotero and DokuWiki for the family. I want a stable server under that lot, not a beta release.

CentOS Stream will not be a "beta release". That's not how RHEL minor release development works. I personally think that it's going to be stellar for your exact use case.

On 12/9/20 1:01 PM, Christopher Wensink wrote:

Understanding the flow of packages, is it a fair comparison to say that moving forward: Fedora packages could be considered alpha/beta releases of apps Centos/Stream could be considered beta / Pre-release / Release candidates of packages / partially stable RHEL official releases would be considered final release / stable

Where as before (done 12/2021) Fedora Packages would be beta / pre-release then RHEL and CentOS were final release / stable  - one with commercial support and the other with community only support.

Is that accurate?

I doubt very seriously that changes made for point releases are ever considered beta quality ..

Do the packages added betweren RHEL 7.8 to 7.9 or from RHEL 8.2 to RHEL 8.3 differ so much? Not really. Look at the differences in the packages. For the most part .. except for some desktop rebases and the kernels .. the ABI/API stay the same.

There are some rebases of some packages, but not very many.

I keep trying to say .. no one is rolling in packages here straight from a new Fedora version or from Rawhide. These changes are point release type changes. That is the type of changes you see from 8.2 to 8.3 or 7.8 to 7.9 ... not major changes.

On 12/9/2020 12:54 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 09:40:22AM +0000, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:

...

And exactly the same applies to senior (or retired) admins on their home computers.  My main home machine runs about a dozen testbed VMs, DHCP/DNS for the home network, Amanda, NFS and Samba for other machines, ownCloud, Apache, Zotero and DokuWiki for the family.  I want a stable server under that lot, not a beta release.

CentOS Stream will not be a "beta release". That's not how RHEL minor release development works. I personally think that it's going to be stellar for your exact use case.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:32:00 AM PST Phelps, Matthew wrote:

This is really, really bad for the majority of us using CentOS.

Is there any way we can lobby for the reversal of this decision? Remember that the -devel mailing list, and IRC channels *do not* represent the vast majority of CentOS users. Most of us are just sysadmins trying to keep our systems that have been using CentOS for many, many years running and our procedures for installing, and patching systems working after whatever changes have been mysteriously decided upon, and forced on us.

We will be forced to look at other distributions now; and forced to do a ton of unnecessary work to deal with this.

Thanks a lot.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

...

The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream, and over the next year we’ll be shifting focus from CentOS Linux, the rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), to CentOS Stream, which tracks just ahead of a current RHEL release. CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end at the end of 2021. CentOS Stream continues after that date, serving as the upstream (development) branch of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Meanwhile, we understand many of you are deeply invested in CentOS Linux 7, and we’ll continue to produce that version through the remainder of the RHEL 7 life cycle. https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/#Life_Cycle_Dates

CentOS Stream will also be the centerpiece of a major shift in collaboration among the CentOS Special Interest Groups (SIGs). This ensures SIGs are developing and testing against what becomes the next version of RHEL. This also provides SIGs a clear single goal, rather than having to build and test for two releases. It gives the CentOS contributor community a great deal of influence in the future of RHEL. And it removes confusion around what “CentOS” means in the Linux distribution ecosystem.

When CentOS Linux 8 (the rebuild of RHEL8) ends, your best option will be to migrate to CentOS Stream 8, which is a small delta from CentOS Linux 8, and has regular updates like traditional CentOS Linux releases. If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not meet your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Hat about options.

We have an FAQ - https://centos.org/distro-faq/ - to help with your information and planning needs, as you figure out how this shift of project focus might affect you.

Maybe, maybe not.

Take a look at Rocky Linux https://www.reddit.com/r/RockyLinux/comments/ka0qlv/ meet_rocky_linux_new_rhel_fork_by_the_original/

On 12/8/20 8:35 AM, Bill Gee wrote:

Aside from the the latest shiny - what are the advantages of CentOS 8 Stream? What are the benefits?

I read through the announcement and FAQ, but they do not address that question. Is it just a name change? Is it an attempt to put CentOS on a subscription model?

Stream is the RHEL sorce code for rhel + 0.1 .. so durng the 8.3 rhel cycle, stream will be rhel 8.4 source code.

It is not very far ahead of the current code. It is indeed the code you will get in 6 months. It is not 'new shiny' .. it is newer enterprise.

What are the benefits:

1) Many people (like Intel and Facebook) are providing feedback in real time. So can any user. They should have in place, before RHEL 9 development starts, the ability to accept public community pull requests into stream.

2) This code is still RHEL source code .. it is just not released in rhel yet. Almost all of it will be released in the upcoming RHEL point release.

3) Most bugs will get fixed faster, if the code is pulled into stream. Many times you don't get the fix until the next point release .. and this will be what stream is.

On 12/8/20 2:01 PM, centos@niob.at wrote:

On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

On 12/8/20 8:35 AM, Bill Gee wrote:

...

Aside from the the latest shiny - what are the advantages of CentOS 8 Stream?  What are the benefits?

I read through the announcement and FAQ, but they do not address that question.  Is it just a name change?  Is it an attempt to put CentOS on a subscription model?

Stream is the RHEL sorce code for rhel + 0.1 .. so durng the 8.3 rhel cycle, stream will be rhel 8.4 source code.

It is not very far ahead of the current code.  It is indeed the code you will get in 6 months.  It is not 'new shiny' .. it is newer enterprise.

What are the benefits:

1)  Many people (like Intel and Facebook) are providing feedback in real time.  So can any user.  They should have in place, before RHEL 9 development starts, the ability to accept public community pull requests into stream.

2)  This code is still RHEL source code .. it is just not released in rhel yet.  Almost all of it will be released in the upcoming RHEL point release.

3)  Most bugs will get fixed faster, if the code is pulled into stream.   Many times you don't get the fix until the next point release .. and this will be what stream is.

You are putting lipstick on a pig. Let's face it: This is IBM pulling the plug on CentOS.

Not a single one of those "benefits" will benefit *me*. I am a private user hosting his own machines with CentOS for stability but using RHEL for work. I do not have the money to pay for RHEL. But I do contribute to open-source projects, some of which are part of RHEL.

I'm pretty sure IBM is behind this: They still do not like the open-source model. They only like money.

After 20 years of running and advocating for Redhat based Distros (Fedora on workstations, CentOS on servers) I night have to jump ship (if somebody is going to clone "classic" CentOS to keep tracing RHEL I might reconsider). Debian or Ubuntu: here I come. I will also no longer advocate for RHEL in the workplace where we used CentOS for non-production machines and RHEL for production.

Thanks for the hard work you put into CentOS over the years. Sorry to hear that it now turns out to have been wasted.

I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:02 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

On 12/8/20 2:01 PM, centos@niob.at wrote:

...

On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

On 12/8/20 8:35 AM, Bill Gee wrote:

...

Aside from the the latest shiny - what are the advantages of CentOS 8 Stream? What are the benefits?

I read through the announcement and FAQ, but they do not address that question. Is it just a name change? Is it an attempt to put CentOS on a subscription model?

Stream is the RHEL sorce code for rhel + 0.1 .. so durng the 8.3 rhel cycle, stream will be rhel 8.4 source code.

It is not very far ahead of the current code. It is indeed the code you will get in 6 months. It is not 'new shiny' .. it is newer enterprise.

What are the benefits:

1. Many people (like Intel and Facebook) are providing feedback in real

time. So can any user. They should have in place, before RHEL 9 development starts, the ability to accept public community pull requests into stream.

2. This code is still RHEL source code .. it is just not released in

rhel yet. Almost all of it will be released in the upcoming RHEL point release.

3. Most bugs will get fixed faster, if the code is pulled into stream.

Many times you don't get the fix until the next point release .. and this will be what stream is.

You are putting lipstick on a pig. Let's face it: This is IBM pulling the plug on CentOS.

Not a single one of those "benefits" will benefit *me*. I am a private user hosting his own machines with CentOS for stability but using RHEL for work. I do not have the money to pay for RHEL. But I do contribute to open-source projects, some of which are part of RHEL.

I'm pretty sure IBM is behind this: They still do not like the open-source model. They only like money.

After 20 years of running and advocating for Redhat based Distros (Fedora on workstations, CentOS on servers) I night have to jump ship (if somebody is going to clone "classic" CentOS to keep tracing RHEL I might reconsider). Debian or Ubuntu: here I come. I will also no longer advocate for RHEL in the workplace where we used CentOS for non-production machines and RHEL for production.

Thanks for the hard work you put into CentOS over the years. Sorry to hear that it now turns out to have been wasted.

I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.

But, was this a RedHat decision? In other words, was the CentOS Board influenced by RedHat to make this decision in an effort to generate more revenue by forcing users to switch to a RHEL paid subscription to keep the status quo?

If so, I assure them, based on all the feedback I've seen so far, this decision will backfire.

On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:

I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.

Then WHO made the decision?

Where was the transparency in this decision by the CentOS Board? (assuming CentOS still *has* a working independent board)

Judging from the reactions, I don't believe that anyone saw this coming. Where was the community consultation on IF this was a good idea.

Jim

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:05 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

On 12/8/20 3:40 PM, Jim Bourne wrote:

...

On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.

Then WHO made the decision?

Where was the transparency in this decision by the CentOS Board? (assuming CentOS still *has* a working independent board)

Judging from the reactions, I don't believe that anyone saw this coming. Where was the community consultation on IF this was a good idea.

The CentOS Project board has a Red Hat Liaison. That position is documented here:

https://www.centos.org/about/governance/board-responsibilities/#red-hat-liai...

Also see role of Liaison here (and look at B:):

https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/

The bottom line is .. a decision of the CentOS Board has been made and we don't have to like it. We do have to do it, regardless of if we like it.

The CentOS Board has failed in its *FIRST* four responsibilities.

From that first web page:

CentOS Governing Board Responsibilities

- Guidance and leadership over the ultimate Project roadmap. - Community outreach. - Maintenance of health and viability of CentOS community. - Maintenance of a healthy and proactive relationship with the Project users and consider those needs and uses in decisions.

On 12/8/20 5:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:05 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

...

On 12/8/20 3:40 PM, Jim Bourne wrote:

...

On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.

Then WHO made the decision?

Where was the transparency in this decision by the CentOS Board? (assuming CentOS still *has* a working independent board)

Judging from the reactions, I don't believe that anyone saw this coming. Where was the community consultation on IF this was a good idea.

The CentOS Project board has a Red Hat Liaison. That position is documented here:

https://www.centos.org/about/governance/board-responsibilities/#red-hat-liai...

Also see role of Liaison here (and look at B:):

https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/

The bottom line is .. a decision of the CentOS Board has been made and we don't have to like it. We do have to do it, regardless of if we like it.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

B. The Liaison may, in exceptional circumstances, make a decision on behalf of the Board if a consensus has not been reached on an issue that is deemed time or business critical by Red Hat.

So, Johnny, are you saying that the RedHat Liaison, who is Brian Exelbierd ( bexelbie@redhat.com) has forced this decision on the CentOS Board, despite objection from the Board?

Brian, please answer this directly, or the so called "Transparency" from RedHat and CentOS we were promised will be clearly shown to be a lie.

No .. I am saying that the CentOS Board knows that option exists, and therefore we know that IF it is invoked, we get no say in what will happen for that decision. I am saying that the CentOS Board therefore made a hard decision given the situation we were in.

On 12/8/20 8:35 AM, Bill Gee wrote:

Aside from the the latest shiny - what are the advantages of CentOS 8 Stream? What are the benefits?

I read through the announcement and FAQ, but they do not address that question. Is it just a name change? Is it an attempt to put CentOS on a subscription model?

Another very good thing

There is no longer a huge delay of a drop of 750 packages at once and a delay of more than a month to get a new release.

There will be on delay in stream .. it will be a constantly rolling distribution .. updates will happen all the time with no 'big drop' at point release time.

Just do a thought experiment and think about the current process and how stream works. There is no reason you can not use CentOS Stream for what you use CentOS Linux for now.

I know what the knee jerk reaction is .. but put that aside and really look at the timing of code and release of packages, etc.

If you don't like how it turns out .. then shift to another platform. You (and we) have a full year to show you the benefits of Stream.

Is Ubuntu or Debian any better wrt package versions and enterprise?

How really different is RHEL 8.3 from 8.2 .. or 8.4 from 8.3?

Just look at the facts and make the choice that is appropriate for your situation.

El mar, 8 dic 2020 a las 13:44, Nicolas Kovacs (info@microlinux.fr) escribió:

Le 08/12/2020 à 16:12, Johnny Hughes a écrit :

...

Another very good thing

There is no longer a huge delay of a drop of 750 packages at once and a delay of more than a month to get a new release.

There will be on delay in stream .. it will be a constantly rolling distribution .. updates will happen all the time with no 'big drop' at point release time.

When I read the first messages of this thread, I was quite concerned. But having read through your detailed explanations, let me state that I'm reassured.

As a sysadmin, what I like about CentOS is that it's probably the most *boring* Linux distribution out there. Boring is good. No drama, no surprises. I know I can have yum-cron run once a day without Icinga suddenly sending me a tsunami of failure alerts and without clients calling me and yelling on the phone.

Cheers,

Niki

-- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Blog : https://blog.microlinux.fr Mail : info@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

+1 But for some It centennials progress is about destroying the present. Smoke as a Service.

It appears that Red Hat has taken ownership of a free and opensource OS and is now making decisions regarding it. Maybe it is time to look at Oracle Linux.

Andrea

-----Original Message----- From: CentOS centos-bounces@centos.org On Behalf Of Pete Biggs Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:15 AM To: centos@centos.org Subject: {EXTERNAL} Re: [CentOS] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/

CAUTION:  This email originated outside of BSWH; avoid action unless you know the content is safe. Send suspicious emails as attachments to BadEmail@BSWHealth.org.

Forgive a bit of cynicism ...

On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 09:06 -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:

The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream, and over the next year we’ll be shifting focus from CentOS Linux, the rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), to CentOS Stream, which tracks just ahead of a current RHEL release. CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end at the end of 2021. CentOS Stream continues after that date, serving as the upstream (development) branch of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

"If you want to keep using RHEL for free, you will have to put up with making sure that our paying customers get better quality releases"

Meanwhile, we understand many of you are deeply invested in CentOS Linux 7, and we’ll continue to produce that version through the remainder of the RHEL 7 life cycle. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/u pdates/errata/*Life_Cycle_Dates__;Iw!!JA_k2roV-A!TV5uC89TVscCRwr7zzXLD C5qXG9icBBoFhbvuzaIQd8c6FERiSUJfbDgNxr_uWxezw$

"If you really want to have a stable release for free, stick to 7"

CentOS Stream will also be the centerpiece of a major shift in collaboration among the CentOS Special Interest Groups (SIGs). This ensures SIGs are developing and testing against what becomes the next version of RHEL. This also provides SIGs a clear single goal, rather than having to build and test for two releases. It gives the CentOS contributor community a great deal of influence in the future of RHEL.

"CentOS will become the developer playground"

And it removes confusion around what “CentOS” means in the Linux distribution ecosystem.

Was there any confusion? If there is, then it's caused by the introduction of things like "CentOS Stream". There was never any confusion when it was a straight rebuild.

When CentOS Linux 8 (the rebuild of RHEL8) ends, your best option will be to migrate to CentOS Stream 8, which is a small delta from CentOS Linux 8, and has regular updates like traditional CentOS Linux releases. If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not meet your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Hat about options.

"If you want a production environment, pay for it"

We have an FAQ - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://centos.org/distro-faq/__;!!JA_k2ro V-A!TV5uC89TVscCRwr7zzXLDC5qXG9icBBoFhbvuzaIQd8c6FERiSUJfbDgNxpK0XXHGg$ - to help with your information and planning needs, as you figure out how this shift of project focus might affect you.

The FAQ generally says "if you want a RHEL environment, then pay for it"

[See also: Red Hat's perspective on this. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/centos-stre am-building-innovative-future-enterprise-linux__;!!JA_k2roV-A!TV5uC89T VscCRwr7zzXLDC5qXG9icBBoFhbvuzaIQd8c6FERiSUJfbDgNxqzGbXGpw$ ]

Red Hat's perspective is "CentOS is ours now; IBM have told us to make sure it's pulling its weight or we aren't allowed to put any resources into it"

So as far as I can see all the RHEL rebuilds are dead now - WhiteBox, Scientific Linux, now CentOS. Are there any left?

P.

_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos...

********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure, and no waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other privilege is intended. If you are the intended recipient, further disclosures are prohibited without proper authorization. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden and possibly a violation of federal or state law and regulations. The sender and Baylor Scott & White Health, and its affiliated entities, hereby expressly reserve all privileges and confidentiality that might otherwise be waived as a result of an erroneous or misdirected e-mail transmission. No employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of Baylor Scott & White Health, or any affiliated entity, by e-mail without express written confirmation by the CEO, the Senior Vice President of Supply Chain Services or other duly authorized representative of Baylor Scott & White Health.

I am already using Oracle Linux in some servers.

Free as CentOS, faster updates than CentOS, and with some extra support, BTRFS and a newer kernel, for example.

On 12/8/20 12:15 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:

Red Hat's perspective is "CentOS is ours now; IBM have told us to make sure it's pulling its weight or we aren't allowed to put any resources into it"

So as far as I can see all the RHEL rebuilds are dead now - WhiteBox, Scientific Linux, now CentOS. Are there any left?

P.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

I'll probably switch to Debian over the new year.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:01 AM Phelps, Matthew mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu wrote:

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:58 AM Julio E. Gonzalez jegp4444@gmail.com wrote:

...

I am already using Oracle Linux in some servers.

Free as CentOS, faster updates than CentOS, and with some extra support, BTRFS and a newer kernel, for example.

I expect their usage is about to explode.

I've always feared a greater betrayal by Oracle than CentOS, but that clearly isn't the case now.

On 12/8/20 12:15 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:

...

...

Red Hat's perspective is "CentOS is ours now; IBM have told us to make sure it's pulling its weight or we aren't allowed to put any resources into it"

So as far as I can see all the RHEL rebuilds are dead now - WhiteBox, Scientific Linux, now CentOS. Are there any left?

P.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--

*Matt Phelps*

*Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator*

(Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory)

Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian

60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138 email: mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu

cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook | Twitter http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter | YouTube <http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube

...

| Newsletter http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Many CentOS users are also RedHat customers. Those RedHat customers may currently be rethinking their RedHat investment given this change of events. We currently run Oracle Linux on a number of servers and have been very pleased with it.

Andrea

-----Original Message----- From: CentOS centos-bounces@centos.org On Behalf Of Phelps, Matthew Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 10:01 AM To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Subject: {EXTERNAL} Re: [CentOS] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/

CAUTION:  This email originated outside of BSWH; avoid action unless you know the content is safe. Send suspicious emails as attachments to BadEmail@BSWHealth.org.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:58 AM Julio E. Gonzalez jegp4444@gmail.com wrote:

I am already using Oracle Linux in some servers.

Free as CentOS, faster updates than CentOS, and with some extra support, BTRFS and a newer kernel, for example.

I expect their usage is about to explode.

I've always feared a greater betrayal by Oracle than CentOS, but that clearly isn't the case now.

On 12/8/20 12:15 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:

...

Red Hat's perspective is "CentOS is ours now; IBM have told us to make sure it's pulling its weight or we aren't allowed to put any resources into it"

So as far as I can see all the RHEL rebuilds are dead now - WhiteBox, Scientific Linux, now CentOS. Are there any left?

P.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinf o/centos__;!!JA_k2roV-A!V3VBB8oav3lezmsEBK2l0Dtvdz3K206E3zTa5QNoFgSs k0QcADKf4pjnRdA9r_SWug$

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/ centos__;!!JA_k2roV-A!V3VBB8oav3lezmsEBK2l0Dtvdz3K206E3zTa5QNoFgSsk0Qc ADKf4pjnRdA9r_SWug$

Wrong.

Am 08.12.20 um 18:25 schrieb J Martin Rushton via CentOS:

The first thing Oracle wants is for you to sign up for an Oracle account.  Hmm, I'll give Springdale a try.  For those with long memories, remember the DEC RDMS promises prior to take over, and the aftermath?

Isos are here: https://yum.oracle.com/oracle-linux-isos.html

Repository is here: https://yum.oracle.com/oracle-linux-8.html

Already stated by someone else: Free as CentOS, faster updates than CentOS, and with some extra support, BTRFS and a newer kernel, for example.

Forget about IBM.

We were told way back in 2014, when Red Hat bought CentOS, that CentOS would remain independent from RedHat. This is clearly bullshit now. So we were totally misled into adopting the platform with the belief that what we were getting would stay the same, an unsupported recompile of RHEL and its updates.

This is no longer what we will be getting, and even worse, it is no longer what we will be getting AFTER BEING ASSURED that CentOS 8 would remain in parallel with RHEL 8 until 2029.

This is a classic bait-and-switch money grab and it is going to hurt *a lot* of people in the form of a shitload of added work to change platforms.

It's totally contemptible and a complete betrayal to loyal enthusiasts.

I have ZERO respect for RedHat now, and unless the decision is reversed, I'll prosthelytize against them as loud as I can, on as many platforms as I can.

I . Am. PISSED.

-Matt

P.S. Where is Karanbir? He is supposedly the Chair of the CentOS Board. I want to hear from him on this.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:54 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:15:17PM +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:

...

Forgive a bit of cynicism ...

Sure, some cynicism is absolutely warranted. It's a big change.

...

"If you want to keep using RHEL for free, you will have to put up with making sure that our paying customers get better quality releases"

I mean.... That's not the _worst_ deal I've ever heard. But actually it's better than you've stated, because the benefit to others happens even regardless of the paying customers -- others using CentOS Stream also benefit. And for that matter since many of fixes go upstream, users of open source in general.

(In some ways, this is like: being a paying customer of RHEL also benefits other paying customers. And for that matter, those paying customers benefit all of the free users, and Fedora, and hundreds of upstreams.)

...

"CentOS will become the developer playground"

This one is categorically not the case. Even Fedora isn't a developer playground. Everything landing in CentOS Stream is actually *planned* (with emphasis intentional) to go in a future RHEL release.

Previously, all the development around RHEL releases was done in secret, in the Red Hat black box. Now it's out of the box and can be watched. There may be some launch pains, but I expect the average quality of an update hitting CentOS Stream to be very high.

...

...

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/centos-stream-building-innovative-future-ente... ]

...

Red Hat's perspective is "CentOS is ours now; IBM have told us to make sure it's pulling its weight or we aren't allowed to put any resources into it"

Of course, that link says nothing of the sort. It's easy to imagine IBM conspiracies, but the honest truth is that there's nothing to that. Now, I don't know everything, and it may be the case that IBM is secretly pulling all sorts of invisible strings and making Red Hat management dance, but I do know about *this* particular thing and IBM had nothing to do with it.

-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 12/8/20 6:18 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:

On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 17:54 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:15:17PM +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:

...

...

"CentOS will become the developer playground"

This one is categorically not the case. Even Fedora isn't a developer playground. Everything landing in CentOS Stream is actually *planned* (with emphasis intentional) to go in a future RHEL release.

It's all the talk of SIGs and developing and testing and that Stream will be the centerpiece of that. That's what I meant.

...

Previously, all the development around RHEL releases was done in secret, in the Red Hat black box. Now it's out of the box and can be watched. There may be some launch pains, but I expect the average quality of an update hitting CentOS Stream to be very high.

I don't get that from the documents released today. If Stream is *not* a test-bed, then surely the code that appears in Stream must be fully formed in secret behind the scenes first. Yes, it will appear piecemeal rather than in one big chunk, but it has been categorically denied that Stream is not a RHEL 8.n+1 beta and is more a RHEL 8.n+1 RC/rolling release.

I think what a lot of people are concerned about is the rolling-release aspect of this. There will be no definitive versioning of CentOS in the future - all you will be able to say is "fully updated" and it won't be possible to slot a CentOS system in to exactly match a RHEL version. Will third party RPMs built against RHEL 8.x be installable on a CentOS 8 Stream system? The answer is surely "it depends", but there are a lot of hardware vendors that target drivers to RHEL releases, which may well make CentOS non-viable for hardware that doesn't have drivers built in to the kernel.

I suspect that for a large proportion of scenarios Streams will be perfectly OK. But we still get software/instruments that specifically say "only RHEL 7.4" or something like that (yes, it's a support nightmare).

It is not the same as Rawhide is all I am saying.

It is based on the current release and it is being modified for some reason.

That modification can be a bugfix from a reported bug, it can be an enhancement for a given package or it can be a security update.

Each of these updates will be rolled in one at a time.

It is what will eventually become the next rhel source code in a few months for the next point release.

Only you will know if this will work for your situation.

We do have CI testing, which will be beefed up to be similar to the testing RHEL actually does right now before release of packages for the 'released version' of RHEL.

Will bugs get though .. sure, they do now into RHEL.

But I will absolutely say that the things they are rolling into RHEL 8.4 in a few months are not inherently less stable or less secure or whatever else you want to call it .. when compared to other Linux distros.

The process that Debian would use to roll in bug fixes or Ubuntu would use to roll in bug fixes would not be significantly better or more stable or more secure.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Pete Biggs pete@biggs.org.uk wrote:

The problem is that we won't know if it will work. When CentOS matched the RHEL point releases we knew that an RPM/driver targeted for RHEL 8.2 has a good chance of working on CentOS 8.2 - but that versioning match is lost with Stream. So vendors will either have to produce another version of their RPM for CentOS 8 Stream (and continuously check to see if it needs to be updated) or, more likely, just not bother to support CentOS. It already happens - HPE won't support CentOS, but they do support RHEL and those RHEL RPMs work with CentOS. The only Linux they support is RHEL, so we're stuck with our HPE kit.

Cool, I understand where you're coming from. If the world remained static after this announcement I would be more concerned about this scenario. As it is, we're in a dynamic space, and CentOS Stream will be a place that hardware vendors can participate as well.

But I will absolutely say that the things they are rolling into RHEL 8.4

...

in a few months are not inherently less stable or less secure or whatever else you want to call it .. when compared to other Linux

distros.

So instead of keeping everything back for a point release, the packages are set free once they are ready. Stream is a rolling release. And that's fine, but it's not what people thought they were getting when committing to CentOS. It has always been promoted as point release compatible with RHEL and that was it's main attraction to many people.

It's certainly a change.

A separate question. Will a point release of RHEL 8.x be directly a snapshot of 8Stream on a specific date? Or will RedHat pick and choose which versions from 8Stream they put into 8.x? i.e. Would it be possible to clone the 8Stream tree on the date that, say, 8.6 is released and call it 8.6.stream - would 8.6 be the same as 8.6.stream

RHEL is developed according to a schedule that keeps us delivering minor releases on a 6 month cadence. That includes a period of time when we're putting the finishing touches on one release and simultaneously working on the next. Folks on the CentOS Stream team can speak with more authority on what the intended alignment points are (I know what makes sense from my perspective, but there may be other considerations I'm unaware of).

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 09:24:33AM +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:

What will be the incentive for vendors to participate? Sure you can talk the corporate talk about opportunities and ecosystems, but the bottom line is that it requires investment (at least in time) when they could just continue supporting RHEL point releases, or possibly every other point release.

Oh, this one is easy. Because *this is how Red Hat is telling vendors to support RHEL point releases from now on*. I know it's easy to get lost in everything else, but this is a huge pivot in RHEL development focusing more directly on CentOS.

(Although as I understand it there will also be cases where code supporting new hardware is embargoed until a release date, which complicates things in some cases. That doesn't change the overall new picture though.)

I think what a lot of people are concerned about is the rolling-release

...

aspect of this. There will be no definitive versioning of CentOS in the future - all you will be able to say is "fully updated" and it won't be possible to slot a CentOS system in to exactly match a RHEL version. Will third party RPMs built against RHEL 8.x be installable on a CentOS 8 Stream system? The answer is surely "it depends", but there are a lot of hardware vendors that target drivers to RHEL releases, which may well make CentOS non-viable for hardware that doesn't have drivers built in to the kernel.

Generally if they follow the ABI guidelines I would expect it to work. Those are here: https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility

For loadable kernel modules there's a kernel ABI.

Yes, and many things work well. My most recent issue was that kit supplied by HPE (sorry, it's pain is stuck in my mind) had a RAID controller that needs a driver disk during install - doing the install time drivers is not a problem, the problem is that they don't support CentOS, hence I had to use a RHEL driver and out of the 5 available for RHEL7/8, only one of them worked with a CentOS release. HPE support don't want to know because they don't support CentOS.

I know this comes under the heading of "Corporate RedHat Policy", but is RedHat going to do the right thing by CentOS 8 Stream to the level of lobbying other behemoth corporations such as HPE or Dell to support it?

P.

On 9/12/2020 4:32 μ.μ., Brendan Conoboy wrote:

As CentOS Stream grows, I expect many companies who sell hardware will become active members of the community.

Probably, but this is not the point. The value of CentOS is that in essence it is identical to RHEL.

This allows its use in multiple scenarios which the new CentOS Stream will not be able to support any more, due to its nature.

You may want to read comments at:

https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/

and:

https://www.change.org/p/centos-governing-board-do-not-destroy-centos-by-usi...

to realize why this change will make it unsuitable in most of its current usage scenarios.

Cheers, Nick

On 12/10/20 5:28 PM, mark wrote:

On 12/9/20 9:32 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 1:41 AM Pete Biggs pete@biggs.org.uk wrote:

...

...

I think what a lot of people are concerned about is the rolling-release

...

aspect of this. There will be no definitive versioning of CentOS in the future - all you will be able to say is "fully updated" and it won't be

<snip> > As CentOS Stream grows, I expect many companies who sell hardware will > become active members of the community. > I expect them to leave. In the real world, we had EXTREMELY limited windows to update servers and workstations. To expect people to do daily updates is asking for management, as well as the users, to scream bloody murder. Most are *not* that technical, and will start blaming the update for something else not working, and management will hear *them*.

I was chased off RH after RH 9, when it went to pay for licenses (and I was "between positions"), and came back, because I *like* the RH architecture. but I'm considering ubuntu now.

There is Springdale RHEL clone made by Princeton University...

On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 15:13 +0000, Phil Perry wrote:

If you are able to retain kernel ABI compatibility between RHEL8 and Stream kernels, then we (and other OEMs) will be able to continue to support Stream users, otherwise Stream users will have to look to alternative solutions.

Phil

Maybe offering 2 kernels in stream may solve your problem? A "latest point release" and a "rolling version"? I realize that this may cause issues with packages that really need the new kernel features....

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:21 AM Phil Perry pperry@elrepo.org wrote:

On 09/12/2020 03:26, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:19 PM Pete Biggs pete@biggs.org.uk wrote:

...

On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 17:54 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:15:17PM +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:

...

...

"CentOS will become the developer playground"

This one is categorically not the case. Even Fedora isn't a developer playground. Everything landing in CentOS Stream is actually *planned*

(with

...

emphasis intentional) to go in a future RHEL release.

It's all the talk of SIGs and developing and testing and that Stream will be the centerpiece of that. That's what I meant.

I don't know if I'd call SIGs a playground, but they're certainly an important venue for communities to explore variations.

...

...

Previously, all the development around RHEL releases was done in

secret,

...

...

in

...

the Red Hat black box. Now it's out of the box and can be watched.

There

...

...

may

...

be some launch pains, but I expect the average quality of an update

hitting

...

CentOS Stream to be very high.

I don't get that from the documents released today. If Stream is *not* a test-bed, then surely the code that appears in Stream must be fully formed in secret behind the scenes first. Yes, it will appear piecemeal rather than in one big chunk, but it has been categorically denied that Stream is not a RHEL 8.n+1 beta and is more a RHEL 8.n+1 RC/rolling release.

I think maybe some of the nervousness about CentOS Stream comes from RHEL seeming opacity on its development model. As one of the architects of

our

...

development process I'd be happy to field questions. I'll start by

making

...

a two points in case they're in any way unclear:

1. Everything that goes into RHEL lands upstream first, then the patches

are backported into the RHEL releases. 2. Most of the work we do or plan on doing is in bugzilla.redhat.com.

If

...

you go into the RHEL8 product queue today and file a bug you'll see

"CentOS

...

Stream" as a "Version" where an issue is encountered.

I think what a lot of people are concerned about is the rolling-release

...

aspect of this. There will be no definitive versioning of CentOS in the future - all you will be able to say is "fully updated" and it won't be possible to slot a CentOS system in to exactly match a RHEL version. Will third party RPMs built against RHEL 8.x be installable on a CentOS 8 Stream system? The answer is surely "it depends", but there are a lot of hardware vendors that target drivers to RHEL releases, which may well make CentOS non-viable for hardware that doesn't have drivers built in to the kernel.

Generally if they follow the ABI guidelines I would expect it to work. Those are here:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility

...

For loadable kernel modules there's a kernel ABI.

Hi Brendan,

This point is *critical*, so I apologise in advance for the lengthy post, *you* are breaking the kernel ABI between RHEL8 and Stream.

One of the main unique selling points of RHEL is the stability of it's kernel ABI. No other distro provides this. The very nature of rolling kernel updates in Stream breaks the kernel ABI and breaks compatibility between RHEL8 and Stream. What works on RHEL8 may not work on Stream. At the kernel level, the two products diverge in fundamental compatibility and are not compatible, are no longer the same.

How bad is this divergence / breakage? Well, we know the kernel ABI will change from time to time, almost exclusively at new point releases due to the massive backporting work that goes into the RHEL kernel. And this is fine, we know it's coming, we know when it's coming, and we can plan for it's impact. It's a price well worth paying.

To put this in context, at elrepo I currently help maintain around 50 3rd party kernel driver packages for RHEL8. When RH released RHEL8.3, every single package in our repository broke due to changes in the kernel ABI in the 6 month period between RHEL8.2 and RHEL8.3. It's not ideal, but we accept it as a price we pay for the otherwise excellent stability of the kernel ABI during the proceeding 6 months. As I said above, we know it's coming, we know when it's coming, and we can plan for it.

Now contrast that with Stream. Every kernel update in Stream has the potential to break the kernel ABI causing packages built for RHEL to break. We don't know when that may happen (only that it will), we don't know how often it will happen, we have no idea which packages it will break. and we have no way to fix it. Consequently, elrepo has been unable to support Stream kernels.

It is not just elrepo's users that the Stream kernels will affect. All OEM hardware manufacturers releasing 3rd party driver rpms as part of Red Hat's Driver Update Programme or otherwise will be similarly affected, and their driver updates will not be applicable to or compatible with CentOS Stream. In fact, RHEL's own driver update packages will likely need rebuilding against each Stream kernel update, although presumably you are in the unique position of being able to integrate any changes directly into the Stream kernel negating the need for driver updates and to mitigating the impact to yourselves.

Luckily the solution is simple - do not include rolling beta kernel updates as part of Stream - rather just ship regular RHEL8 kernel updates that retain kernel ABI compatibility rather than breaking compatibility of the Stream product. I see no compelling reason to ship rolling kernel updates to Stream - it's not like I will ever be able to commit a patch and have you accept/merge it, and it's totally useless for me as a developer as I can't develop anything against a constantly moving target, and anyone who does require access has always had that available through their Red Hat OEM Partner/Developer accounts. Shipping rolling kernel updates in Stream adds no value and simply breaks compatibility between RHEL8 and Stream at the most fundamental level. If you are able to retain kernel ABI compatibility between RHEL8 and Stream kernels, then we (and other OEMs) will be able to continue to support Stream users, otherwise Stream users will have to look to alternative solutions.

Hi Phil,

Thank you for these details, I really appreciate you taking the time to share this. It sounds like for your use-cases interim kernel updates are somewhere between not-useful and harmful, but I know for others it's actually a benefit. As a temporary workaround, elsewhere in this thread somebody mentioned they're already cherry-picking which updates to use and which to skip. The only trouble is when a kernel update comes out with both things you want and things you don't want. So a better approach is called for. While I'm not sure how we'll get there, it seems like the mutually satisfying end result would be one where third party binary drivers work with CentOS Stream kernels. Let's see what we can do.

On 09/12/2020 17:32, Peter Georg wrote:

On 09/12/2020 18.10, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:21 AM Phil Perry pperry@elrepo.org wrote:

...

On 09/12/2020 03:26, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:19 PM Pete Biggs pete@biggs.org.uk wrote:

...

On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 17:54 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:15:17PM +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:

...

> "CentOS will become the developer playground"

This one is categorically not the case. Even Fedora isn't a developer playground. Everything landing in CentOS Stream is actually *planned*

(with

...

emphasis intentional) to go in a future RHEL release.

It's all the talk of SIGs and developing and testing and that Stream will be the centerpiece of that. That's what I meant.

I don't know if I'd call SIGs a playground, but they're certainly an important venue for communities to explore variations.

...

...

Previously, all the development around RHEL releases was done in

secret,

...

...

in

...

the Red Hat black box. Now it's out of the box and can be watched.

There

...

...

may

...

be some launch pains, but I expect the average quality of an update

hitting

...

CentOS Stream to be very high.

I don't get that from the documents released today.  If Stream is *not* a test-bed, then surely the code that appears in Stream must be fully formed in secret behind the scenes first. Yes, it will appear piecemeal rather than in one big chunk, but it has been categorically denied that Stream is not a RHEL 8.n+1 beta and is more a RHEL 8.n+1 RC/rolling release.

I think maybe some of the nervousness about CentOS Stream comes from RHEL seeming opacity on its development model.  As one of the architects of

our

...

development process I'd be happy to field questions.  I'll start by

making

...

a two points in case they're in any way unclear:

1. Everything that goes into RHEL lands upstream first, then the

patches are backported into the RHEL releases. 2. Most of the work we do or plan on doing is in bugzilla.redhat.com.

If

...

you go into the RHEL8 product queue today and file a bug you'll see

"CentOS

...

Stream" as a "Version" where an issue is encountered.

I think what a lot of people are concerned about is the rolling-release

...

aspect of this. There will be no definitive versioning of CentOS in the future - all you will be able to say is "fully updated" and it won't be possible to slot a CentOS system in to exactly match a RHEL version. Will third party RPMs built against RHEL 8.x be installable on a CentOS 8 Stream system? The answer is surely "it depends", but there are a lot of hardware vendors that target drivers to RHEL releases, which may well make CentOS non-viable for hardware that doesn't have drivers built in to the kernel.

Generally if they follow the ABI guidelines I would expect it to work. Those are here:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility

...

For loadable kernel modules there's a kernel ABI.

Hi Brendan,

This point is *critical*, so I apologise in advance for the lengthy post, *you* are breaking the kernel ABI between RHEL8 and Stream.

One of the main unique selling points of RHEL is the stability of it's kernel ABI. No other distro provides this. The very nature of rolling kernel updates in Stream breaks the kernel ABI and breaks compatibility between RHEL8 and Stream. What works on RHEL8 may not work on Stream. At the kernel level, the two products diverge in fundamental compatibility and are not compatible, are no longer the same.

How bad is this divergence / breakage? Well, we know the kernel ABI will change from time to time, almost exclusively at new point releases due to the massive backporting work that goes into the RHEL kernel. And this is fine, we know it's coming, we know when it's coming, and we can plan for it's impact. It's a price well worth paying.

To put this in context, at elrepo I currently help maintain around 50 3rd party kernel driver packages for RHEL8. When RH released RHEL8.3, every single package in our repository broke due to changes in the kernel ABI in the 6 month period between RHEL8.2 and RHEL8.3. It's not ideal, but we accept it as a price we pay for the otherwise excellent stability of the kernel ABI during the proceeding 6 months. As I said above, we know it's coming, we know when it's coming, and we can plan for it.

Now contrast that with Stream. Every kernel update in Stream has the potential to break the kernel ABI causing packages built for RHEL to break. We don't know when that may happen (only that it will), we don't know how often it will happen, we have no idea which packages it will break. and we have no way to fix it. Consequently, elrepo has been unable to support Stream kernels.

It is not just elrepo's users that the Stream kernels will affect. All OEM hardware manufacturers releasing 3rd party driver rpms as part of Red Hat's Driver Update Programme or otherwise will be similarly affected, and their driver updates will not be applicable to or compatible with CentOS Stream. In fact, RHEL's own driver update packages will likely need rebuilding against each Stream kernel update, although presumably you are in the unique position of being able to integrate any changes directly into the Stream kernel negating the need for driver updates and to mitigating the impact to yourselves.

Luckily the solution is simple - do not include rolling beta kernel updates as part of Stream - rather just ship regular RHEL8 kernel updates that retain kernel ABI compatibility rather than breaking compatibility of the Stream product. I see no compelling reason to ship rolling kernel updates to Stream - it's not like I will ever be able to commit a patch and have you accept/merge it, and it's totally useless for me as a developer as I can't develop anything against a constantly moving target, and anyone who does require access has always had that available through their Red Hat OEM Partner/Developer accounts. Shipping rolling kernel updates in Stream adds no value and simply breaks compatibility between RHEL8 and Stream at the most fundamental level. If you are able to retain kernel ABI compatibility between RHEL8 and Stream kernels, then we (and other OEMs) will be able to continue to support Stream users, otherwise Stream users will have to look to alternative solutions.

Hi Phil,

Thank you for these details, I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.  It sounds like for your use-cases interim kernel updates are somewhere between not-useful and harmful, but I know for others it's actually a benefit.  As a temporary workaround, elsewhere in this thread somebody mentioned they're already cherry-picking which updates to use and which to skip.  The only trouble is when a kernel update comes out with both things you want and things you don't want.  So a better approach is called for.  While I'm not sure how we'll get there, it seems like the mutually satisfying end result would be one where third party binary drivers work with CentOS Stream kernels.  Let's see what we can do.

Hi Brendan,

Thank you for your response, I am feeling more encouraged.

Hi Brendan,

I support what Phil said. Guaranteed kernel ABI compability between CentOS Stream and current RHEL minor release would resolve most of my concerns (i.e. supporting 3rd party driver rpms).

However this would disallow updating the CentOS Stream kernel as it is currently done. Maybe offering both, i.e. allow to optionally stay on the current minor release kernel version (including its updates) is feasible?

As Peter eludes above, there are a number of ways this can be achieved. A separate repo/channel could be used to provide Stream kernels as an opt in update to the regular RHEL8 kernels. The main technical issue to overcome will be the fact the Stream kernels are of a higher NVR and the RHEL8 kernels, so it is difficult to see how the Stream kernel can be the default as they are now.

Anyway, it's not my job to solve these technical issues for you - you have plenty folks far more capable than I, that I'm sure can figure this stuff out given a commitment and clear direction from above.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 1:12 PM Tom Bishop bishoptf@gmail.com wrote:

Well looks like the jokes have already started, some one from work sent this to me this morning - https://centos.rip/

No association etc not sure who etc... _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

It wasn't me!

Honest.

On 12/9/20 12:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

While I'm not sure how we'll get there, it seems like the mutually satisfying end result would be one where third party binary drivers work with CentOS Stream kernels. Let's see what we can do.

So, I want to address this part a bit.  In MANY cases, it's not a third-party driver that ELrepo packages; it's an in-kernel driver that Red Hat has decided to disable.  Such as the megaraid_sas driver I need for my servers.

On 12/9/20 9:37 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:07 PM Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:

...

So, I want to address this part a bit. In MANY cases, it's not a third-party driver that ELrepo packages; it's an in-kernel driver that Red Hat has decided to disable. Such as the megaraid_sas driver I need for my servers.

And just to give you some more examples -- ELRepo offers DUD (driver update disk) images for the devices whose support has been dropped in RHEL 8:

https://elrepo.org/linux/dud/el8/x86_64/

And those DUDs are very much appreciated.  That's how I got the install of C8 on those R710s in the first place, after all!

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:07 PM Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:

On 12/9/20 12:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

...

While I'm not sure how we'll get there, it seems like the mutually satisfying end result would be one where third party binary drivers work with CentOS Stream kernels. Let's see what we can do.

So, I want to address this part a bit. In MANY cases, it's not a third-party driver that ELrepo packages; it's an in-kernel driver that Red Hat has decided to disable. Such as the megaraid_sas driver I need for my servers.

Ah yes, that's a great call-out. I'm not sure what the plan is there (or if there is one), but to me it seems like the sort of thing a SIG would build.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:54 AM Phil Perry pperry@elrepo.org wrote:

On 10/12/2020 03:55, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:07 PM Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:

...

On 12/9/20 12:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

...

While I'm not sure how we'll get there, it seems like the mutually satisfying end result would be one where third party binary drivers work with CentOS Stream kernels. Let's see what we can do.

So, I want to address this part a bit. In MANY cases, it's not a third-party driver that ELrepo packages; it's an in-kernel driver that Red Hat has decided to disable. Such as the megaraid_sas driver I need for my servers.

Ah yes, that's a great call-out. I'm not sure what the plan is there (or if there is one), but to me it seems like the sort of thing a SIG would build.

Well, yes, about 10 years too late for those discussions I'm afraid ;-)

Yes, but the calculus has changed a bit from 10 years ago, too, no?

And besides, why on earth would Red Hat remove support for older hardware that you (understandably) no longer want to commit resources to maintaining, only to turn round and commit resources to maintaining them in a SIG? That's why you guys reached out to us (elrepo) in the first place.

Note we've moved from me discussing facts about how RHEL works to my unauthoritative opinions on matters ;-) My point is really only this: if past decisions no longer make the most sense in the context of new events, we need to redesign. To the extent we can make things better we should make them better. For this topic it's probably too early to tell if or how things should change in light of the upcoming changes, but it's clear that handling it will make CentOS Stream adoption an option for more people who use CentOS today.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 1:01 AM Gionatan Danti g.danti@assyoma.it wrote:

Il 2020-12-10 04:55 Brendan Conoboy ha scritto:

...

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:07 PM Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:

...

On 12/9/20 12:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:

...

While I'm not sure how we'll get there, it seems like the mutually satisfying end result would be one where third party binary drivers work with CentOS Stream kernels. Let's see what we can do.

So, I want to address this part a bit. In MANY cases, it's not a third-party driver that ELrepo packages; it's an in-kernel driver that Red Hat has decided to disable. Such as the megaraid_sas driver I need for my servers.

Ah yes, that's a great call-out. I'm not sure what the plan is there (or if there is one), but to me it seems like the sort of thing a SIG would build.

Brendan, can you clarify the following points?

I'll take a stab at it, though I'll note Josh Boyer has already provided a few answers to similar questions...

• are you going to keep stable ABI between Stream kernel releases, or

should we expect each kernel to break 3rd party drivers/modules?

All our kernel changes are implemented against the kernel ABI- there is no point in time during release development when we have interim changes in the kernel that ignore the symbols in the whitelist. So basically if your experience of going from one minor release to another has been smooth, the incremental kernels between those two releases would also tend to run smooth, assuming whatever motions happen with the 3rd party drivers/modules behind the scenes continue to happen (for example, rebuilding from source).

• what/how many synchronization points are going to be with RHEL

releases?

I'm not sure I'm interpreting your question correctly, could you restate? I don't want to hit you with detailed process information only to find out I'm answering the wrong question!

• what about security updates? Will they be released *before* the

corresponding RHEL secure patch, or should we expect the (slow) current update cadency?

RHEL development prioritizes CVE resolution in support streams, followed by current release update streams.

• is an upgrade path from Stream-8 to Stream-9 planned, or the usual

"total server rebuild" will be necessary?

Upgrades are important. We continue to invest in the major release upgrade tooling introduced with the launch of RHEL 8.

Full disclosure: the main CentOS point was to be 100% compatible, down

to the specific kernel used, with RHEL. To get that, we lived with: a) comparatively few packages, b) not-working yum security-only updates and c) very restrictive selinux policies.

I am heavily invested in CentOS/RHEL ecosystem and I opened many bug reports/enhancement requests in the past years, so I would really like to continue using CentOS. However, using Stream seems to removing the key selling point (ie: total RHEL compatibility) without clear benefit.

Thanks for the bug reports :-) I hear you on RHEL compatibility. With my OS developer hat on I think CentOS Stream will be more RHEL compatible, but if I put on my old dusty ops hat I can understand why it might not look that way right now.

Am 08.12.2020 um 17:15 schrieb Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com:

On 12/8/20 10:41 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jonathan Billings billings@negate.org wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:28:30AM -0500, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

You have published a CentOS Lifecycle that states the EOL for CentOS 8 is May 2029. (c.f.

https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/centos).

...

CentOS Stream *is not* CentOS 8.

This announcement is a breach of that trust with your community, and

could

...

be construed as a breach of contract with your users.

Save this change for CentOS 9.

Don't worry, it's been fixed. :/

Don't worry. I saved a copy.

So did we. It's in Git.

That page was never a contract. It's a web page published by an open source project. Please do not misconstrue it as a contract.

Of course it was not a legally binding contract. But we, the users, trusted you. No we don't anymore.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 10:15 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

On 12/8/20 10:41 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jonathan Billings billings@negate.org wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:28:30AM -0500, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

You have published a CentOS Lifecycle that states the EOL for CentOS 8

is

...

...

...

May 2029. (c.f.

https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/centos).

...

CentOS Stream *is not* CentOS 8.

This announcement is a breach of that trust with your community, and

could

...

be construed as a breach of contract with your users.

Save this change for CentOS 9.

Don't worry, it's been fixed. :/

Don't worry. I saved a copy.

So did we. It's in Git.

That page was never a contract. It's a web page published by an open source project. Please do not misconstrue it as a contract.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Yeah that makes it all better, lol. If this was the direction you should have done it before releasing Centos 8, of course Redhat can do what they want to do, becoming more and more like MS, oh well.

On 12/8/20 10:29 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 11:15:04AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:

...

That page was never a contract. It's a web page published by an open source project. Please do not misconstrue it as a contract.

I don't think anyone seriously thought it was a contract.

Open Source works largely on trust. Trust that the developers aren't going to intentionally harm their users, and the trust that those developers will provide a consistent product. Developers earn the trust of their users. Trust is the basic commodity for Open Source.

That doesn't mean that open source providers always provide those things. There are many, many stories out there where upstream makes an abrupt change that their users dislike. And if you've broken that trust, end users are going to be wary of ever putting any more trust in the developers.

Maybe the CentOS Stream thing will work out OK for everyone. But the way this was announced, there are a lot of people who have lost trust in CentOS and Red Hat. Changing the end of life for CentOS 8 has broken our trust in the project.

I see a lot of promises that Stream will have better engagement with the community. Why would we trust these promises?

You should NOT trust them. You should observe them.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

On 12/8/20 11:29 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:

...

I see a lot of promises that Stream will have better engagement with the community. Why would we trust these promises?

"Better engagement with the community" of course requires that the community step up and engage. Trust isn't something anyone expects to just magically happen.

The whole point of CentOS was so that we didn't have to "engage." We don't have time for that.

We just want a stable re-compile of RHEL, as promised. CentOS has been diverging from this for a while (note the change in version names/numbers) and we DON'T WANT THAT!

_______________________________________________

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 11:11 AM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

On 12/8/20 11:02 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

...

On 12/8/20 11:29 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:

...

I see a lot of promises that Stream will have better engagement with the community. Why would we trust these promises?

"Better engagement with the community" of course requires that the community step up and engage. Trust isn't something anyone expects to just magically happen.

The whole point of CentOS was so that we didn't have to "engage." We

don't

...

have time for that.

We just want a stable re-compile of RHEL, as promised. CentOS has been diverging from this for a while (note the change in version

names/numbers)

...

and we DON'T WANT THAT!

Right, you want free RHEL .. so get in touch with Red Hat and see if you qualify for it.

Here is how you can convert:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/2360841

Or, you can see if Stream can meet your requirements of something you can just get for free.

Or, you can do something else. It is all up to you. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Or you could do this https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/

Sad day when Oracle becomes a better alternative.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 12:20 PM Marc Balmer via CentOS centos@centos.org wrote:

Am I the only one to perceive CentOS/RedHat team members responses as quite arrogant?

Clearly, you haven't been around here long. :)

This is par for the course here, and extremely frustrating.

...

Am 08.12.2020 um 18:11 schrieb Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:

On 12/8/20 11:02 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

On 12/8/20 11:29 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:

...

I see a lot of promises that Stream will have better engagement with the community. Why would we trust these promises?

"Better engagement with the community" of course requires that the community step up and engage. Trust isn't something anyone expects to just magically happen.

The whole point of CentOS was so that we didn't have to "engage." We

don't

...

...

have time for that.

We just want a stable re-compile of RHEL, as promised. CentOS has been diverging from this for a while (note the change in version

names/numbers)

...

...

and we DON'T WANT THAT!

Right, you want free RHEL .. so get in touch with Red Hat and see if you qualify for it.

Here is how you can convert:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/2360841

Or, you can see if Stream can meet your requirements of something you can just get for free.

Or, you can do something else. It is all up to you. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 11:29 AM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

On 12/8/20 11:19 AM, Marc Balmer via CentOS wrote:

...

Am I the only one to perceive CentOS/RedHat team members responses as

quite arrogant?

I am sorry you feel that way. I was trying to help. Red Hat has several programs where they give away RHEL for free. CentOS Stream is free. CentOS Linux 8 is going away in at the end of 2021.

Those are facts.

He said he wanted free Linux and did not want to interact with the community. I provided all the alternatives that i know for that.

Stream, a qualified version of RHEL that can be obtained from Red Hat for free (has nothing to do with CentOS) or some other distribution.

I am not being arrogant or negative. Just pointing out facts.

I have been doing this for 17 years. I would continue doing for 17 more. But it is what it is and wishing for it to be different is not going to happen. I know .. I've tried.

...

...

Am 08.12.2020 um 18:11 schrieb Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:

On 12/8/20 11:02 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

On 12/8/20 11:29 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:

...

I see a lot of promises that Stream will have better engagement with the community. Why would we trust these promises?

"Better engagement with the community" of course requires that the community step up and engage. Trust isn't something anyone expects to just magically happen.

The whole point of CentOS was so that we didn't have to "engage." We

don't

...

...

...

have time for that.

We just want a stable re-compile of RHEL, as promised. CentOS has been diverging from this for a while (note the change in version

names/numbers)

...

...

...

and we DON'T WANT THAT!

Right, you want free RHEL .. so get in touch with Red Hat and see if you qualify for it.

Here is how you can convert:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/2360841

Or, you can see if Stream can meet your requirements of something you can just get for free.

Or, you can do something else. It is all up to you.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

I've been around for most of those, thanks Johnny for all the work. Appreciate all the work that all the contributors have done over the years, just sad to see it go, oh well.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 12:35 PM Phelps, Matthew mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu wrote:

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 12:29 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

...

On 12/8/20 11:19 AM, Marc Balmer via CentOS wrote:

...

Am I the only one to perceive CentOS/RedHat team members responses as

quite arrogant?

I am sorry you feel that way. I was trying to help. Red Hat has several programs where they give away RHEL for free. CentOS Stream is free. CentOS Linux 8 is going away in at the end of 2021.

Those are facts.

He said he wanted free Linux and did not want to interact with the community. I provided all the alternatives that i know for that.

Stream, a qualified version of RHEL that can be obtained from Red Hat for free (has nothing to do with CentOS) or some other distribution.

I am not being arrogant or negative. Just pointing out facts.

I have been doing this for 17 years. I would continue doing for 17 more. But it is what it is and wishing for it to be different is not going to happen. I know .. I've tried.

That doesn't sound much like a "community" to me. That's my point.

(And I explicitly did not ask for "free Linux," or even "free RHEL." I only asked for what the CentOS web page says, and has said for your 17 years.)

"Since March 2004, CentOS Linux has been a community-supported distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by Red Hat. As such, CentOS Linux aims to be functionally compatible with RHEL."

...

...

...

Am 08.12.2020 um 18:11 schrieb Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:

On 12/8/20 11:02 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com

wrote:

...

...

...

...

On 12/8/20 11:29 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote: > I see a lot of promises that Stream will have better engagement with > the community. Why would we trust these promises?

"Better engagement with the community" of course requires that the community step up and engage. Trust isn't something anyone expects to just magically happen.

The whole point of CentOS was so that we didn't have to "engage." We

don't

...

...

...

have time for that.

We just want a stable re-compile of RHEL, as promised. CentOS has been diverging from this for a while (note the change in version

names/numbers)

...

...

...

and we DON'T WANT THAT!

Right, you want free RHEL .. so get in touch with Red Hat and see if

you

...

...

qualify for it.

Here is how you can convert:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/2360841

Or, you can see if Stream can meet your requirements of something you can just get for free.

Or, you can do something else. It is all up to you.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--

*Matt Phelps*

*Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator*

(Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory)

Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian

60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138 email: mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu

cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook | Twitter http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter | YouTube http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube | Newsletter http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter

On 12/8/2020 11:28 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

I have been doing this for 17 years. I would continue doing for 17 more. But it is what it is and wishing for it to be different is not going to happen. I know .. I've tried.

We owe everyone who worked on CentOS a big thank you.

I think a lot of people are overwhelmed by the fact that the CentOS we knew appears to be dying (was killed, in fact).

I wonder what the ultimate outcome will be. Probably RHEL will get a few new subscribers and some CentOS users will migrate to stream, but I think this will ultimately diminish Red Hat within the Linux world.  Probably net advantage to Ubuntu.

I shudder to imagine a world where Oracle Linux replaces CentOS.

-Alan

Am 08.12.20 um 19:20 schrieb Alan Mead:

...

On 12/8/2020 11:28 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

I have been doing this for 17 years. I would continue doing for 17 more. But it is what it is and wishing for it to be different is not going to happen. I know .. I've tried.

We owe everyone who worked on CentOS a big thank you.

Yes, we do. Let's not forget that.

...

I shudder to imagine a world where Oracle Linux replaces CentOS.

Who knows? Amazon may see this as another opportunity and in 5 years Amazon Linux will be the standard. Or Ubuntu, with its use of ZFS rather than playing again with btrfs--RH dropped that, but now it's the default in Fedora, so it may make a reappearance.

It had a good long run. Or maybe stream's differences will be minimal, and almost nothing will change.

Regardless, let's not forget that we *do* owe everyone who worked on CentOS lots of thanks. (Though my current job is a FreeBSD shop, we have some things on CentOS that have packages for Linux but not FreeBSD.)

On 12/9/20 12:01 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 11:28:58AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

...

Am I the only one to perceive CentOS/RedHat team members responses as quite arrogant?

I am sorry you feel that way. I was trying to help. Red Hat has

Yeah, um, if I'm coming across as arrogant, I apologize. I genuinely think this is overall a good thing, and I'm hoping some of y'all will see some of that. I realize my excitement might not be completely catching at first.

But Johnny is easily in the running for "least arrogant person I know", and has demonstrated that consistantly for years and years, as anyone who has followed CentOS regularly will attest. So, c'mon, let's please not take this there.

I do not see you or anyone else as arrogant. Any harsh words, especially from Johnny can be attributed to frustration of not getting his view across, and I do not fault him for that.

But harsh fact remains that CentOS Linux, a free clone of RHEL, is being slaughtered, and as far as I am concerned that "Stream" thingy can be renamed to RHEL Stream because it has no resemblance to CentOS Linux I know and love.

CentOS Community wants free clone of stable and respected RHEL. That is only thing that we can use to compete with Debian/Ubuntu which have vanila kernel (it takes long text to explain to people what RHEL kernel is or is not), proprietary/non-GPL drivers, codecs and apps Red Hat does not want to add to RHEL, EPEL or Fedora. Majority of Linux users does not want to bother with 3rd paraty repositories, convoluted ways to add some things (that sometimes clash with base packages), etc. That is why CentOS or even Fedora was never accepted as Desktop/Laptop, and I am loosing desire to fight for CentOS's place under the sun.

I was actually planing to convert several C6 and C7 servers to C8, and now I am happy I did not waste my time on it. I even wanted to lobby to move servers of Mensa Serbia to CentOS (8), but those are now DEFINITELY going to be all Debian which my co-admin wishes, and it will be place where I will start learning Debian way in preparation for "Day of Sorrow" in 12 months.

So with "CentOS Linux" gone, it is either some other clone (which will take a lot of fate I do not have at the moment) like Springdale or newly started Rocky Linux, or Debian Stable

Il 08/12/20 18:19, Marc Balmer via CentOS ha scritto:

Am I the only one to perceive CentOS/RedHat team members responses as quite arrogant?

No and this is not started with the current discussion.

Am 08.12.20 um 18:11 schrieb Johnny Hughes:

On 12/8/20 11:02 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:

...

On 12/8/20 11:29 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:

...

I see a lot of promises that Stream will have better engagement with the community. Why would we trust these promises?

"Better engagement with the community" of course requires that the community step up and engage. Trust isn't something anyone expects to just magically happen.

The whole point of CentOS was so that we didn't have to "engage." We don't have time for that.

We just want a stable re-compile of RHEL, as promised. CentOS has been diverging from this for a while (note the change in version names/numbers) and we DON'T WANT THAT!

Right, you want free RHEL .. so get in touch with Red Hat and see if you qualify for it. ...

https://www.redhat.com/en/store/red-hat-enterprise-linux-server -> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server -> Choose your subscription -> SELF-SUPPORT (1 YEAR)

...

...

...

Is not intended for production environments.<<<<<

What?

-- Leon

------ Original Message ------ From: "Rainer Duffner" rainer@ultra-secure.de

So, you will quickly be back to square one, unless you want to run stuff like Debian or Ubuntu, which are mainly Linux-kernel+some stuff nowadays, whereas RHEL + CentOS forms a complete system (with additional software that RedHat has developed or acquired over the years).

Been reading along and literally laughed out loud at this silliness.

The vast majority of that "system" was unavailable to CentOS, always, and WAS the "compromise" in running it.

Stuff like beating your head against getting Satellite running, or realizing RH hid away the meta-data from CentOS users to know what a security update was, versus a feature or bugfix, which went against what RHEL itself was SUPPOSED to do, but never really did... and couldn't control massive upstream ABI, API, or feature changes throughout the lifespan of the promised "support", even for paid RHEL.

This is definitely not true for most CentOS users and is hilarious. What "system"? It NEVER existed on CentOS. Can't even get patch management software to mesh up verion numbers between RHEL and CentOS.

We "put up with it all" for exactly one reason. It was a binary compatible re-spin of RHEL without closed/proprietary things. That's it.

The rest is just noise. If it isn't a re-spin anymore... well, we'll "put up with" other oddities of projects that don't reverse their multi-year commitments to support things, and even stop having to "fight" with years-old packages.

The IT world wants "rolling" OSes and perma-garbage always-broken releases today, apparently.

Our first company meeting about who we dump CentOS for was this morning. Flipping architectures is a year long project at least, so we're out. Didn't announce alternatives THE DAY IT WAS KILLED, we can't be bothered anymore.

We literally don't have the time with piles of other commerical and cloud services following suit and capitalizing on WFH and everything else about Covid. We already literally have to "fire" our firewall/VPN vendor for doing it, we're extremely annoyed with both Google and Microsoft and their changes, and we already have the continuous nightmare of literally EVERYONE releasing so many critical security bugs constantly and patching ramping toward daily... that everybody who makes that harder is flipped the bird and summarily tossed.

The good news: Covid business model changes at least highlighted who we're firing faster than any hemming and hawing as things deteriorate for years on any platform we use. Whoever is reaching into our (not very deep) pockets will lose a hand this year, we have lost our patience for it.

RH and the so-called "CentOS Board" (majority of RedHat people) lost touch with what companies are already going through with multiple vendors bumping prices and lowering services. Flipping distros will ultimately seem tame this year for corporate users. We may have to switch entire cloud platforms and services to avoid the ultra-greedy companies. But annoy us this year, we have zero patience. We're done with it.

DUMP. BYE. You ticked us off in a long line of companies we have doing that. Horrible timing for RH, but they'll survive on government graft and large contracts. Go Big Blue.