On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:13 PM Phelps, Matthew <mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: > > > 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. > > > No answer? Not surprised. So much for CentOS being independant of RedHat. -- *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>