On 11.12.2020 15:23, 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.
On a production server, where no surprises are expected? That may be.
People often act very, so to say, strangely.
I am telling about other people. I doubt those actively running Fedora
on production systems do participate in these threads.
>> 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.
Is RHEL itself suitable for running on production servers?
If not, my argument is weak. If yes, then CentOS, bug-to-bug compatible,
is suitable, too.
RH won't ever endorse running CentOS (more generally, anything free of
charge) for obvious reasons, so I don't care about their opinion on this
subject.
>> 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.
Well, it's not at all difficult for me. Tastes differ.
> 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.
My primary objection is breach of trust. RH shouldn't have lied at least
to CentOS community.
Other bug-to-bug compatible RHEL clones will replace the CentOS, so this
is the part I am less worried about. If someone is happy with CentOS
Stream, that's fine. I am not, but that's (not only) my problem.
--
Sincerely,
Konstantin Boyandin
system administrator (ProWide Labs Ltd. - IPHost Network Monitor)
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
