On 18.12.2020 23:28, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 12/17/20 7:54 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:
>> On 16.12.2020 22:50, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 12/15/20 9:59 PM, Joshua Kramer wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> $250K is not even close. That is one employee, when you also take
into
>>>>> account unemployment insurance, HR, medical insurance etc. now
multiply
>>>>> that by 8. Now, outfit those 8 employees to work from home .. all
over
>>>>> the world, different countries, different laws.
>>>>
>>>> I'm genuinely curious about something, and this is mostly academic
>>>> since it's probably the subject of proprietary discussions within
>>>> RedHat. Presumably, RedHat had a build pipeline for RHEL that worked
>>>> well for them, by supplying alpha/beta releases of point releases to
>>>> their customers and giving them time to "cook" before releasing those
>>>> point releases into production. Why would RedHat invest millions more
>>>> in buying the CentOS process just to have CentOS act as the beta?
>>>
>>> Why did they change the development process of RHEL ..
>>>
>>> Because they want to do the development in the community. The current
>>> process of RHEL development is closed .. they want it to be open. It is
>>> that simple.
>>>
>>> I think Stream is also very usable as a distro. I think it will be just
>>> as usable as CentOS Linux is now.
>>
>> It's usable, as Fedora is certainly usable - in its separate use cases.
>> It's not bug-for-bug copy of current RHEL, so it's *not* as usable as
>> CentOS Linux was.
>>
>>> It is not a beta .. I keep saying that. Before a .0 release (the main,
>>> or first, main reelase) is a beta. Point releases do not really need
>>> betas .. certainly not open to anyone other than customers. Now CentOS
>>> Stream is available all the time to everyone, customer or not. Once the
>>> full infrastructure is in place, everyone (not just RHEL customers) can
>>> provide feed back and bugs, do pull requests, etc.
>>
>> Now please tell me whether Chris Wright was lying when saying the below
>> to ZDNet:
>>
>> "To be exact, CentOS Stream is an upstream development platform for
>> ecosystem developers. It will be updated several times a day. This is
>> not a production operating system. It's purely a developer's distro."
>>
>> It's purely a developer's distro. Shall I explain difference between a
>> developer's distro and the one suitable for production servers (a
>> rhetoric question)?
>
> Of course he wasn't lying. The purpose of ANY CentOS release from a Red
> Hat perspective, is as a developer release. Red Hat has never produced
> CentOS to be used in production for any reason.
Believe me, I don't care a penny about what Red Hat has in its perspective.
Fact: CentOS is and was successfully used in a variety of production
servers (where RH, of course, would prefer to see RHEL). CentOS was
stable and reliable. This is why I, among other sysadmins, was using it.
It was stable and conservative, that's what I need.
> It is ALSO completely free to use however YOU want to use it. As is
> CentOS Stream. If it meets your requirements, you can use it. Stream
> is no different.
>
> People who certify things, who certified CentOS Linux for things, are
> free to evaluate and do that with CentOS Stream as well.
>
> Is it ever going to be like it was before .. no. If that is a deal
> breaker for you, OK. Then you can't use CentOS any longer. Great, if
> you can't use it, then use something else.
>
> All I can do is what I can do .. All you can do is what you can do.
> What is absolutely not helpful is continued complaining. A decision
> was made. It is implemented. CentOS Stream is CentOS Stream.
Who's complaining?
I am just displeased to see a corporation, which has no more use in
CentOS, having decided to just kill it off.
As it was said many a time in the list, if the problem was in money, all
RH would need to do was to ask. There would have been much response from
both people and companies. No, RH just doesn't need it. CentOS Stream
better supports its business model. Just a business decision, nothing
personal.
I am sorry to see the community being split and displeased, that's all.
I will definitely use CentOS Stream, as development media (as I use
Fedora), in case someone cares.
> If you never want to use CentOS again .. great, don't use it. I can't
> make people use CentOS if they don't want to.
>
> What I will do is what I have been doing for the last 17 years .. I will
> do the best job I can to make the things I can build for any version of
> CentOS Linux (or Stream) the best they can be. If people can use them,
> OK. If they can't OK.
I appreciate both your efforts and and efforts of whoever else supported
CentOS all these years. It was a great work.
Personally, I advised to whoever I could to buy something from RH to
support the cause, and supported CentOS in other possible ways I could.
These 17 years were interesting ones.
I think this pretty much concludes the subject. My apologies if I did
hurt your senses. CentOS is dead, long live CentOS, we're moving onward.
--
Sincerely,
Konstantin Boyandin
system administrator (ProWide Labs Ltd. - IPHost Network Monitor)
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
