On 12/17/20 7:54 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote: > On 16.12.2020 22:50, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 12/15/20 9:59 PM, Joshua Kramer wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >>> >>>> $250K is not even close. That is one employee, when you also take into >>>> account unemployment insurance, HR, medical insurance etc. now multiply >>>> that by 8. Now, outfit those 8 employees to work from home .. all over >>>> the world, different countries, different laws. >>> >>> I'm genuinely curious about something, and this is mostly academic >>> since it's probably the subject of proprietary discussions within >>> RedHat. Presumably, RedHat had a build pipeline for RHEL that worked >>> well for them, by supplying alpha/beta releases of point releases to >>> their customers and giving them time to "cook" before releasing those >>> point releases into production. Why would RedHat invest millions more >>> in buying the CentOS process just to have CentOS act as the beta? >> >> Why did they change the development process of RHEL .. >> >> Because they want to do the development in the community. The current >> process of RHEL development is closed .. they want it to be open. It is >> that simple. >> >> I think Stream is also very usable as a distro. I think it will be just >> as usable as CentOS Linux is now. > > It's usable, as Fedora is certainly usable - in its separate use cases. > It's not bug-for-bug copy of current RHEL, so it's *not* as usable as > CentOS Linux was. > >> It is not a beta .. I keep saying that. Before a .0 release (the main, >> or first, main reelase) is a beta. Point releases do not really need >> betas .. certainly not open to anyone other than customers. Now CentOS >> Stream is available all the time to everyone, customer or not. Once the >> full infrastructure is in place, everyone (not just RHEL customers) can >> provide feed back and bugs, do pull requests, etc. > > Now please tell me whether Chris Wright was lying when saying the below > to ZDNet: > > "To be exact, CentOS Stream is an upstream development platform for > ecosystem developers. It will be updated several times a day. This is > not a production operating system. It's purely a developer's distro." > > It's purely a developer's distro. Shall I explain difference between a > developer's distro and the one suitable for production servers (a > rhetoric question)? > Of course he wasn't lying. The purpose of ANY CentOS release from a Red Hat perspective, is as a developer release. Red Hat has never produced CentOS to be used in production for any reason. It is ALSO completely free to use however YOU want to use it. As is CentOS Stream. If it meets your requirements, you can use it. Stream is no different. People who certify things, who certified CentOS Linux for things, are free to evaluate and do that with CentOS Stream as well. Is it ever going to be like it was before .. no. If that is a deal breaker for you, OK. Then you can't use CentOS any longer. Great, if you can't use it, then use something else. All I can do is what I can do .. All you can do is what you can do. What is absolutely not helpful is continued complaining. A decision was made. It is implemented. CentOS Stream is CentOS Stream. If you never want to use CentOS again .. great, don't use it. I can't make people use CentOS if they don't want to. What I will do is what I have been doing for the last 17 years .. I will do the best job I can to make the things I can build for any version of CentOS Linux (or Stream) the best they can be. If people can use them, OK. If they can't OK.