On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 11:10 AM Jean-Marc Liger < jean-marc.liger at parisdescartes.fr> wrote: > Le 26/12/2020 à 17:49, Mike McGrath a écrit : > > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 10:11 AM Jean-Marc Liger < > jean-marc.liger at parisdescartes.fr> wrote: > >> >> Le 21/12/2020 à 21:27, Jean-Marc Liger a écrit : >> >> Le 21/12/2020 à 18:31, Mike McGrath a écrit : >> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:13 AM John Crisp <jcrisp at safeandsoundit.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> That's the 'Extinguish' bit. Comes after 'Embrace' and 'Extend'. >>> >>> >> Uhhh, there is no Extinguish in Open Source. That's the entire point. >> We embraced, we extended. If others want to carry on the torch they are >> more than welcome to do so. >> >> -Mike >> >> Again, a fair way of doing things would have been, Hey guys since we Red >> Hat have bought CentOS, making a downstream release of RHEL is just a >> nonsense, It costs us time and money we can save. So let's reverse the >> process and make RHEL a downstream of CentOS, it will now be Fedora ELN - > >> CentOS Stream - > CentOS Linux - > RHEL. >> >> There would have been no downstream build sponsored by Red Hat, CentOS >> Linux would have kill other clones this way, as it already did for >> Scientific Linux 8, the CentOS Community would have been happy to help to >> get a better RHEL in the Stream process, and Red Hat folks could have put >> all the value of their brand and specificities in their final products, >> backed with a strong ecosystem they could have controlled. >> >> I eared you no answer about this proposal, could you tell me why if it's >> not all about grabbing more money from the CentOS Community ? >> >> -Jean-Marc >> >> I ask for a fourth time this proposal which still remains unanswered, >> but as we say in French, "who doesn't say word consents", therefore it >> is obviously a question of recovering money from the CentOS community with >> the subscriptions Red Hat coming soon. >> >> Jean-Marc >> > How many operating systems do you think we need to be building. In your > little text diagram above, its not clear to me what usefulness CentOS Linux > is to RHEL. I understand why you'd want it (free RHEL). Why do you think > we should produce it? What usefulness is it to us? > > > To fullfil the CentOS initial Goal thought to produce a RHEL clone. > > We've been evaluating that goas for years and I (and others) are unconvinced why we should be doing that. None of our other products have a downstream build that we sponsor. What benefit does doing something we've already done (RHEL), and doing it again (CentOS Rebuild), have for Red Hat? Believe me, when I tell you we looked for years to find an answer to that, no one enjoyed this announcement. But when you look at it, CentOS Linux no longer makes any sense to sponsor. > We don't want to "recover money" from the CentOS community just like our > other communities. But as a business, since you're not providing Red Hat > with profit (none of our communities are), what are you providing that > would result in continued sponsorship of a downstream rebuild? > > -Mike > > > > My little text diagram is simple to understand. It is no an downstream > rebuild, but an upstream pre-build, with more stability than Stream and > actually the missing piece of motivation to help Stream to become stronger. > > RHEL is a downstream rebuild of Stream. Perhaps the missing piece you need to help isn't another rebuild, but free actual RHEL? -Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201226/140dcb1b/attachment-0005.html>