> 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 >