On 11.12.2020 15:23, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 12/10/20 6:28 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote: >> Allow me to disagree. We both trust Chris Wright's words, don't we? CTO >> won't lie. Citing him: >> >> "To be exact, CentOS Stream is an upstream development platform for >> ecosystem developers. It will be updated several times a day. > > So, like Fedora? People run servers on Fedora now, and I think that's > fine. On a production server, where no surprises are expected? That may be. People often act very, so to say, strangely. I am telling about other people. I doubt those actively running Fedora on production systems do participate in these threads. >> This is not a production operating system." > > Does he say that CentOS is a production operating system? > > As far as I know, Red Hat has never endorsed running CentOS in > production, so I don't understand why it's significant that they also > don't endorse running CentOS Stream in production. Is RHEL itself suitable for running on production servers? If not, my argument is weak. If yes, then CentOS, bug-to-bug compatible, is suitable, too. RH won't ever endorse running CentOS (more generally, anything free of charge) for obvious reasons, so I don't care about their opinion on this subject. >> And even if I reduce the number of CentOS Stream upgrades to >> minimal one, the base advantage of CentOS is lost: predictability. > > It's really difficult for me to look at a distribution that just stops > getting updates for 4-6 weeks, twice a year, and use the word > "predictable" to describe it. Well, it's not at all difficult for me. Tastes differ. > My first reaction to the announcement was pretty negative, too. But when > I stepped back and looked at the current situation *real* honestly, I > had to admit that CentOS just doesn't offer any of the things that > people are complaining about losing. > > And I hope that the CentOS maintainers don't interpret that as > criticism, because it isn't intended to be. They've always maintained > that if you need updates/patches in a timely manner, then you should be > paying Red Hat for RHEL. I agreed with them then, and I still do. My primary objection is breach of trust. RH shouldn't have lied at least to CentOS community. Other bug-to-bug compatible RHEL clones will replace the CentOS, so this is the part I am less worried about. If someone is happy with CentOS Stream, that's fine. I am not, but that's (not only) my problem. -- Sincerely, Konstantin Boyandin system administrator (ProWide Labs Ltd. - IPHost Network Monitor)