On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:02 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 12/8/20 2:01 PM, centos at niob.at wrote: > > On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> On 12/8/20 8:35 AM, Bill Gee wrote: > >>> Aside from the the latest shiny - what are the advantages of CentOS 8 > >>> Stream? What are the benefits? > >>> > >>> I read through the announcement and FAQ, but they do not address that > >>> question. Is it just a name change? Is it an attempt to put CentOS > >>> on a subscription model? > >>> > >> Stream is the RHEL sorce code for rhel + 0.1 .. so durng the 8.3 rhel > >> cycle, stream will be rhel 8.4 source code. > >> > >> It is not very far ahead of the current code. It is indeed the code you > >> will get in 6 months. It is not 'new shiny' .. it is newer enterprise. > >> > >> What are the benefits: > >> > >> 1) Many people (like Intel and Facebook) are providing feedback in real > >> time. So can any user. They should have in place, before RHEL 9 > >> development starts, the ability to accept public community pull requests > >> into stream. > >> > >> 2) This code is still RHEL source code .. it is just not released in > >> rhel yet. Almost all of it will be released in the upcoming RHEL point > >> release. > >> > >> 3) Most bugs will get fixed faster, if the code is pulled into stream. > >> Many times you don't get the fix until the next point release .. and > >> this will be what stream is. > > > > You are putting lipstick on a pig. Let's face it: This is IBM pulling > > the plug on CentOS. > > > > Not a single one of those "benefits" will benefit *me*. I am a private > > user hosting his own machines with CentOS for stability but using RHEL > > for work. I do not have the money to pay for RHEL. But I do contribute > > to open-source projects, some of which are part of RHEL. > > > > I'm pretty sure IBM is behind this: They still do not like the > > open-source model. They only like money. > > > > After 20 years of running and advocating for Redhat based Distros > > (Fedora on workstations, CentOS on servers) I night have to jump ship > > (if somebody is going to clone "classic" CentOS to keep tracing RHEL I > > might reconsider). Debian or Ubuntu: here I come. I will also no longer > > advocate for RHEL in the workplace where we used CentOS for > > non-production machines and RHEL for production. > > > > Thanks for the hard work you put into CentOS over the years. Sorry to > > hear that it now turns out to have been wasted. > > > > I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with > this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still > has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with > many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision. > But, was this a RedHat decision? In other words, was the CentOS Board influenced by RedHat to make this decision in an effort to generate more revenue by forcing users to switch to a RHEL paid subscription to keep the status quo? If so, I assure them, based on all the feedback I've seen so far, this decision will backfire. -- *Matt Phelps* *Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator* (Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian 60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138 email: mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook <http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook> | Twitter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter> | YouTube <http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube> | Newsletter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter>