On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:02 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/8/20 2:01 PM, centos@xxxxxxx 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.
--
*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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
