On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 2:03 PM Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:30 PM Phelps, Matthew <mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:00 PM Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:23 AM sankarshan < >>> sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I am going to snip a lot of this note and respond to a specific part. >>>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 21:33, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <centos at plnet.rs> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > It looks like "fatherlinux" chose to not allow my comment. I see he >>>> > allowed some other comments and replied to some other, but mine is >>>> > missing, so I will post it here: >>>> > >>>> > ******************** >>>> >>>> [snipped] >>>> >>>> > To conclude: >>>> > When RH employed CentOS Core team in 2014 they promised that nothing >>>> > will change for "CentOS Linux". According to Johnny Hughes, member of >>>> > the CentOS board this change of direction, discontinuing of "CentOS >>>> > Linux" happened my RH liaison stating that changes will be made how >>>> ever >>>> > rest of the CentOS board votes (with implication concluded by me that >>>> > those against will lose RH employee status). Board was initially >>>> > against, but then they capitulated in front of Red Hat blackmails and >>>> > decided "to vote for changes unanimously". Red Had flexed it's >>>> muscles, >>>> > members of CentOS Board will be forever remembered as exchanging >>>> > reputation and respect for income in Red Hat, and users decided such >>>> > tactics deserve abandonment of Red Hat. >>>> > Some 30% of people commenting negatively say they will move to >>>> > Debian/Ubuntu regardless of any positive points Red Hat employees try >>>> to >>>> > make, at least 60% will stay on CentOS Linux 7 until EOL but will >>>> switch >>>> > CentOS Linux 8 to Springdale, Oracle, or Rocky or Lenix in next 12 >>>> > months, and big non-for-profit institutions will wait to see what will >>>> > happen with "free RHEL licensees" for them. Around 70-80% of sysadmins >>>> > and CentOS users commenting will never, ever, recommend RHEL to >>>> anyone. >>>> > I have to rebase my server from CentOS 6, and I am going with >>>> Springdale >>>> > for now, and will start learning Debian. I will soon resign as admin >>>> in >>>> > Facebook group (Many think that FB group is owned by me) and I was >>>> > already asked by some FB users if I plan to create new EL group they >>>> can >>>> > switch to. Only reason to delay is to try to persuade members and >>>> > visitors that they do not have to rush with switching to >>>> Debian/Ubuntu, >>>> > that there is still time. >>>> > >>>> > **************************** >>>> >>>> The RHT - CentOS bits happened in 2014. I am certain that the >>>> statements from the CentOS team were made with the best intentions and >>>> were not meant to masquerade anything. Holding the entire phenomenal >>>> CentOS crew (all of whom have spent long years building this community >>>> with love) to a statement made way back in 2014 seems and is a bit >>>> unfair. Realities change and it would be reasonably obvious that >>>> strategic plans determined CentOS-as-upstream-of-RHEL to be the need >>>> of the hour rather than continue with the focus of CentOS as it has >>>> been. >>>> >>>> Please pause for a moment and think about the individuals being >>>> denigrated on the lists. These are not the evil, malicious and >>>> villainous characters they are being demonized as. For what it is >>>> worth we've likely met them in person, shared a joke or a beverage. I >>>> doubt they like the outcome any more than we in the community do. >>>> >>>> Being kind, being respectful and being an ally does not take a lot. >>>> Let's be that while we find how best to preserve our interests, >>>> businesses and energies. >>>> >>> >>> I'd also just add that while I find Johnny's characterization of what >>> happened accurate, Ljubomir took a couple of leaps that I don't think >>> existed. Red Hat decided not to continue paying actual money for what was >>> actively harming us and no longer providing the value that it once did. No >>> one, not even the board, could force Red Hat to continue paying for this >>> project which was just not working for us. >>> >> >> Thanks for admitting that the reason Red Hat did this was financial. This >> BS about it being "a better way for Community input into RHEL" is just >> that, BS. >> >> > Ah, actually I didn't do that. RHEL is and has been doing fine. Don't > confuse "value" with revenue. CentOS Linux no longer served any purpose at > Red Hat and I'll flip it back around as I did in the previous email. > > Why should Red Hat, or any company, continue to pay for something that > isn't working out? > Because you committed to it? Because you, repeatedly, said you would? And we believed you? > >> Can we stop with the charade that this is supposed to be a good thing for >> the CentOS community? It's not. It was never intended to be. It's a >> punishment for us getting "free Red Hat" all these years. >> >> > I don't think anyone's said that. This is a massive change and disruption > for the existing CentOS community. 90% of the community (by our estimates) > will be able to stay on CentOS 7 until 2024 just as they expected. We made > sure the 10% on CentOS Linux 8 didn't continue to grow (thus trying to > minimize impact). We aren't punishing anyone and the fact that two other > clones have already popped up is a testament to that. > > I have been lambasted repeatedly as if I was stealing from Red Hat. And that Red Hat deserved to get something from us "freeloaders." Well, you all see the reaction this has garnered around the world, and it's >> all negative except for the Red Hat employees trying to convince us it's a >> good thing. Nice try. >> >> > Actually, things took an interesting turn around Thursday. Once people > understood what we actually announced much of the press has been very > positive, and now that the shock has worn off, we're seeing quite a lot of > support. > > >> We all know differently. And we are all now making influential choices >> that will hurt Red Hat. >> >> > I don't mean to sound cold here but if you really want to talk about the > business side of this.... If you don't have a budget and don't end up > finding a home in our coming low-cost or free offerings (Fedora, CentOS > Stream, UBI, or RHEL for developers, CI, Open Source, edu, mom/pop shops, > etc). Then what choices are you talking about? > I was instrumental in recommending my organization go with RH way back when it was free. Then Fedora, then CentOS, and, yes, paid Red Hat in some places. I will be recommending otherwise now. > -Mike > > >> Good job! >> >> >> >> I'm not going to say that the announcement was the board's idea or even >>> that they were happy about it. I think the previous course and speed of >>> CentOS was well understood. But that no longer worked for Red Hat who is >>> paying for people, servers, swag, etc. The list goes on. >>> >>> Note: I was not in the room when the voting happened. I was involved in >>> the negotiations. The board had a tremendous impact on helping Red Hat >>> better understand some things that needed to happen in CentOS Stream. For >>> example, versioning it and supporting it through the full support cycle of >>> RHEL instead of what stream was before (a sort of continuous stream with >>> one year overlap for migrations, etc). The Board is expecting things out >>> of CentOS Stream and we expect them to hold us to that. >>> >>> It's easy to say "The Board is full of Red Hatters and they did this." >>> But I think we all know that's not the case, some of the Red Hatters on the >>> board were as fierce a defender of the existing CentOS community as one >>> could possibly be. The board could have voted this down. Red Hat could >>> have dissolved the board (as I understand the voting rules). But that >>> didn't happen. Both sides of this came to an agreement that we - together >>> - could live with and that represented a positive future for CentOS. A >>> very very different future for sure, but a positive one. >>> >>> -Mike >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CentOS-devel mailing list >>> CentOS-devel at centos.org >>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> *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 at 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-devel mailing list >> CentOS-devel at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > -- *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 at 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> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201215/551a6859/attachment-0005.html>