On 12/15/20 4:11 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 5:04 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> On 12/14/20 8:25 AM, James Pearson wrote: >>> Nicolas Kovacs >>>> Here's an interesting read which makes a point for CentOS Stream: >>>> >>>> >> https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877 >>>> tl;dr: Communication about Stream was BAD, but Stream itself might be a >> good >>>> thing. Here's why. >>> As others have said, it misses the _really_ important bit about the >> traditional CentOS model which is to follow the RHEL ~10 year life cycle> >>> It doesn't matter how good/rock solid/whatever CentOS Stream turns out >> to be, but if it only has a 5 year life cycle for each major release, then >> it no good to me (and I suspect many others) >> >> There is a 2 year overlap with the next version of stream as well .. in >> this case CentOS Stream 9. How long is Debian or Ubuntu LTS maintained >> for free? >> >> 5 years may not be long enough for you .. but it certainly pretty long. >> And I am TRYING to get that extended. I may not be successful, we'll >> have to see. >> >>> The article also mentions "CentOS will no longer be old, crusty, and >> barely alive, trailing RHEL by months at times" - then why didn't Redhat >> put resources into CentOS to improve that? >> Do you have any idea how much money Red Hat is paying to maintain >> CentOS. And they are maintaining CentOS 7, even now, until 2024. There >> are dozens of machines and several administrators to maintain them. >> >>> Redhat must have known, that if they killed off traditional CentOS, then >> users will simply go elsewhere for a RHEL rebuild ? >> >> If you chose not to use CentOS Stream, that is up to you. What is the >> OS of your TV set. What is the firmware of your computer. Those things >> are now pretty much irrelevant and commoditized. >> >> At some point the underlying OS is going to be much less important and >> the important part will be the layered parts that contain your apps and >> not the OS Layer. >> >> If you want a RHEL clone, that's fine. There will be one available. >> Someone will make one. >> >> The real and complete vision of what CentOS Stream will become will not >> be compolete until around the end of QTR1 2021. If you chose not to try >> it, that is up to you. I truly think Stream will be a much better and >> more quickly fixed OS when everything is in place. >> > I don't expect you to answer Johnny, but why didn't Red Hat wait until > Stream was "complete'" or ready, or whatever. I know the above wasn't directed at me, but maybe it wasn't as much redhat wanting to sell, but IBM wanting to buy (there is a difference). IBM's revenue has steadily and steeply been going down, it had quite a few train wrecks, topped off with plane crashes. IBM is still a very large company, and still makes A LOT of money but for a large part with a bunch of dinosaurs that they are stuck with, and someone spotted a meteor. > > > >>> I agree that Redhat really screwed up this announcement - they would >> have got a lot more kudos if they had announced CentOS Stream to exist >> along with keeping the current traditional CentOS ... >> Again .. pay 8 or more people the going rate to just maintain CentOS. >> Buy the dozens of machines and pay for the datacenter, bandwidth, >> hardware services for machines, etc. This is very expensive. Maybe the >> company you work for will do that out of the goodness of their heart? >> >> > I guess I don't understand. Isn't Red Hat going to pay for CentOS Stream > engineers, hardware, etc? How much more would it be to use them to build > point releases? Won't much of the personnel and infrastructure be the same? > Is Red Hat going to just get rid of all the CentOS resources? I don't > understand why the resources maintaining CentOS 7, and 8 Stream, can't be > used to build CentOS 8.4/5 etc? > > As bummed out as I am about this whole situation, and believe me i am. >> But even I can clearly see that Red Hat has gone above and beyond the >> requirements of open source software and I am quite tired of all the >> 'they should be happy to pay several million dollars a year to give away >> a working product." If it is so easy or cheap to do .. then you guys do >> it. I did it for 17 years. Much of my time was on top of a normal 40 >> hour work week. >> >> > Again, we all appreciate it. It's not you we're mad at. > > >> Red Hat contributes to every major upstream project .. they maintain >> several very key major projects. They let employees contribute to >> projects and pay for them to work on upstream projects. how many things >> do they have to do for free? >> >>> James Pearson >> >> >> > I understand all your points, and I get it, but the fact is Red Hat > committed to the roadmap (c.f. > https://blog.centos.org/2019/07/ibm-red-hat-and-centos/) and now they're > abruptly breaking a promise. One that is affecting a lot of already > overstressed and underpaid people. If they said this would happen at the > beginning of CentOS 8, or better CentOS 9, then fine. But now? > > It sucks big time. >