Re: Blog article: CentOS is NOT dead

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]




On 12/16/2020 12:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 12/14/20 10:54 AM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:

The article states that CentOS will now be "upstream" of RHEL instead of "downstream". This is strange to me. I never thought CentOS was upstream or downstream of RHEL; I always thought it *was* RHEL -- perhaps a little delayed, but that's not the same as being "downstream".

CentOS has always been 'downstream' of RHEL.  The CentOS team rebuilt the source packages with the goal of getting as close as possible to what RHEL shipped, but it has never been 100% identical.  You can do the same by pulling all of the package contents from git.centos.org and build the sources in the correct order with the correct software and the correct options to rpmbuild.  Building from git.centos.org is not really hard at all; what is hard is figuring out the order and figuring out the other bits you might need that aren't necessarily on git.centos.org. Building from git is documented at https://wiki.centos.org/Sources?highlight=(git.centos.org) and you can look at an example of how I rebuilt a CentOS 8 RPM to get a non-distributed subpackage rebuilt at https://forums.centos.org/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=73376&p=314200#p314200

CentOS has never *been* actual RHEL.

It's also clear that Red Hat didn't understand the importance of the 10-year support period.

If they didn't understand it, they wouldn't offer it for RHEL. They just believe that if you need that you should pay something for it.

Yes and no. Yes, in a sense that RedHat always meticulously followed requirements of GPL, and was putting sources of their "derivative" work of backporting as srpms. And "paid" meant putting effort into correctly rebuilding everything, so yes, what we used (roughly called "binary replica" if RHEL) in fact was paid by downstream vendors' efforts.

No, in a sense, RedHat never had, and shouldn't have been expecting being paid for just following GPL letter and having source RPMs freely available. A always praised them for always following GPL.

With utmost respect,

And fully agreeing with the rest of your post,

Valeri

A 10-year support lifespan, even doing a straight rebuild of the packages from RHEL, has a huge cost, and someone has to pay those costs. Should Red Hat's paying customer base subsidize those costs? (if you say 'Red Hat should pay for it' that actually means you think Red Hat's paying customers should pay for it, because that's where Red Hat's money comes from).  In the case of Oracle Linux, Oracle has decided that yes, their paying support customers should subsidize the cost for those who aren't paying.  Someone, somewhere, must pay the costs; in a volunteer project the volunteers typically pay the labor cost themselves, and in many cases pay the cost of the compute hardware, bandwidth, and electricity required; these are not small costs, and someone, somewhere, must pay them.  If the costs aren't adequately covered, the project's deliverables suffer, and users complain.

It really just boils down to a cost without a tangible return on investment.  It remains to be seen if the intangible ROI was as large as the vocal reaction to the transition announcement would imply.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos




[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]


  Powered by Linux