Nicolas Kovacs
>
> Here's an interesting read which makes a point for CentOS Stream:
>
> https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877
>
> tl;dr: Communication about Stream was BAD, but Stream itself might be a good
> thing. Here's why.
As others have said, it misses the _really_ important bit about the traditional CentOS model which is to follow the RHEL ~10 year life cycle
It doesn't matter how good/rock solid/whatever CentOS Stream turns out to be, but if it only has a 5 year life cycle for each major release, then it no good to me (and I suspect many others)
The article also mentions "CentOS will no longer be old, crusty, and barely alive, trailing RHEL by months at times" - then why didn't Redhat put resources into CentOS to improve that?
Redhat must have known, that if they killed off traditional CentOS, then users will simply go elsewhere for a RHEL rebuild ?
I agree that Redhat really screwed up this announcement - they would have got a lot more kudos if they had announced CentOS Stream to exist along with keeping the current traditional CentOS ...
James Pearson
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
