On 12/11/20 12:23 AM, 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. > >> 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. I'm happy you made this point. Yes, CentOS is asssumed to be as "stable" as the release it's based on, but there are changes. I think it's good to keep this in mind and consider an actual RH license if 100% stability and compatibility are the goals. > > >> 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. > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- "DO or DO NOT; there is no try." -- Yoda Kay