[CentOS-devel] Balancing the needs around the RHEL platform

On 28.12.2020 17:34, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On ma, 28 joulu 2020, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS-devel wrote:
>> On 28.12.2020 00:27, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>>> On su, 27 joulu 2020, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS-devel wrote:
>>>> On 27.12.2020 23:00, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>>>>> On su, 27 joulu 2020, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS-devel wrote:
>>>>>> On 27.12.2020 21:48, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>>>>>>> On su, 27 joulu 2020, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/27/20 12:29 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On pe, 25 joulu 2020, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Following your approach to a detailed information about the Stream,
>>>>>>> we've been told there are various RHEL subscription programs coming
>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>> year that would address use of RHEL for many existing CentOS users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -various RHEL subscription programs
>>>>>> +various *paid* RHEL subscription programs
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's be clear: the above 'diff' is your own opinion and a 
>>>>> speculation,
>>>>> not based on any public information. There are no facts that would
>>>>> support a claim that future RHEL subscription programs we are promised
>>>>> will all be paid ones.
>>>>
>>>> Let's be clear: quantifier "all" is your own interpretation and was not
>>>> assumed in my statement.
>>>
>>> I find it strange to add 'paid' where it is not necessary needed to be
>>> if you have no facts to say so. In fact, Chris Wrights blog is very
>>> explicit:
>>>
>>
 https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/centos-stream-building-innovative-future-enterprise-linux 
>>
>>>
>>> "In the first half of 2021, we plan to introduce low- or no-cost
>>> programs for a variety of use cases, including options for open source
>>> projects and communities and expansion of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux
>>> Developer subscription use cases to better serve the needs of systems
>>> administrators. We’ll share more details as these initiatives
 coalesce."
>>
>> "low" is in accordance with "paid". As for "as these initiatives
>> coalesce", I see yet another vague promise. Looks like this decision has
>> been taken *post factum* and was, so to say, unplanned.
> 
> You keep ignoring 'no-cost' part there.

It was said "or". "low- *or* no-cost..." Do you see? Not "and", but "or".

Will I sound too unrealistic, if I say that "low-cost" would be much, 
much more probable?

> As for how decisions were taken, there was plenty of details published
> from the people involved (I wasn't).
>>> The simplest solution for these use cases is to actually report a bug
>>> against RHEL and/or CentOS Stream and make sure it is reproducible. This
>>> would be the quickest way to get the issue backed out or fixed in a
>>> number of days. There are means to remove broken packages from RHEL
>>> composes and I hope we'd have a way to propagate those 'removals' to
>>> CentOS Stream.
>>>
>>> This is something worth raising as a feature request if it doesn't exist
>>> yet.
>>
>> I have doubts it would ever work, but it's worth trying, just to make 
>> sure.
> 
> Not that there are no examples of failing programs anywhere, but keeping
> yourself to a darker tone all the time isn't a great way to improve.

"Failed program" != "Killed program".

RH gives too few grounds to suspect it in good will, ATM.

> Please file bugs/process requests and we'll see how those can be handled
> as a part of CentOS Stream programs.

Sure.

-- 
Sincerely,

Konstantin Boyandin
system administrator (ProWide Labs Ltd. - IPHost Network Monitor)