[CentOS] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/

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>