[CentOS-devel] Queries on CentOS Stream

> On 1/8/2021 11:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:25 PM Japheth Cleaver <cleaver at terabithia.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On 1/7/2021 7:42 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:43:09AM +0000, Chan, Catherine [ITS] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Question 2
>>>>>
>>>>> In the announcement, it states 'If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a
>>>>> production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not
>>>>> meet
>>>>> your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Hat about options.'  Can
>>>>> you
>>>>> highlight what are the drawbacks of CentOS Stream causing not
>>>>> encouraged
>>>>> to run on a production environment?
>>>> These same drawbacks apply to traditional CentOS Linux. Red Hat has
>>>> never
>>>> officially recommended CentOS _anything_ for production use. With
>>>> CentOS,
>>>> there are no service agreements, no support, no one committed to
>>>> making sure
>>>> your problems are resolved in a timely manner (beyond the best efforts
>>>> of
>>>> volunteers). A lot of people can live with that, but for real
>>>> production,
>>>> Red Hat's business is based on the idea that the value of a
>>>> subscription is,
>>>> well, valuable to you.
>>>>
>>>> You mention that you are in a university. Are your servers for
>>>> academic
>>>> (teaching, learning, and research) use or are the part of university
>>>> administration? If it's the former, stay tuned for upcoming new RHEL
>>>> access
>>>> programs which may apply to you.
>>>>
>>> * CentOS Linux (as a *product*) is free as in speech.
>> Forgive me, but CentOS Linux is a project.  I think the distinction is
>> important because there are tradeoffs either way between a project and
>> a product.  CentOS Stream is also a project.
>
> My understanding is that CentOS is a "project", and CentOS Linux
> (including updates and intended support) is a "product" (e.g.,
> https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product).
>
> Either way, I'm intending to refer to the distribution(+updates) as a
> whole here and not individual software components, which will be GPL,
> BSD, MIT, or whatever.
>
>
>>> * RedHat Enterprise Linux (as a *product*), when licensed for
>>> education/non-commercial/whatever program use, is free as in beer.
>>>
>>> If the "RHEL access programs" were announced three months ago (perhaps
>>> with a beefed-up UBI package set) there would have been cheers across
>> Can you elaborate on the UBI part?  What about the current content set
>> isn't sufficient for you?  What usecases are you trying to solve with
>> it?
>>
>> josh
>
> I had in mind mostly things like
>
> * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758354
> * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758358

I get only access denied with both BZ.

Simon

>
> Containers may have a variety of use cases. And while I understand that
> this is a subset of packages and not the full RHEL release, missing
> low-level items means it can't be relied on as a generic solution to the
> OS problem. Adding in the equivalent of CentOS Linux versions of the
> missing packages was considered as a solution, but now a reliance on any
> of that has to be re-evaluated.
>
> -jc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>