On 12/23/20 2:00 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: > You admit that RHEL minor > releases are branches. You admit CentOS is a flattened represention of > the RHEL minor release branches, which means that CentOS is composed > of concatenated set of RHEL minor release branches plus de-branding. You're using the word "admit" as if that wasn't the point that Matthew was making to begin with, which you and Nico argued against. (In response to Matthew, Nico wrote "No. RHEL minor releases are more like source control "tags" than branches." I wrote that Matthew was correct, and you replied "This is false...") > So, please admit that if you want a stable base OS release, with no > new features, for *less* than 6-8 months, then this is exactly what > CentOS is. It's pretty close, with one significant caveat: for (roughly) two months out of the year, CentOS doesn't get any updates at all, including security patches. For me, that's an awfully big risk. I would much rather get features on a regular basis than go without security patches for a month, twice per year. Personally, I think it's irresponsible to make the claim that CentOS is 1:1 with RHEL. It isn't. RHEL is supported all of the time. CentOS is supported during (roughly) 10/12 months of the year. Now, you're free to decide that the 10/12 month support SLA is good enough for your business, and you can say so. That's fine. But these threads drag on at length because when we discuss the benefits that come with giving up the point release in favor of continuous delivery of updates, you start shouting "this is false! this is false! this is false!"