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 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