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)