I’m at something of a loss to understand all the panic here. Unless I’ve misinterpreted, CentOS isn’t killed, it’s being updated more frequently. Want something stable? Freeze a repository into a local copy, and deploy off of that. Like we all should be doing anyway, vs. relying on slurping packages over the net all the time from upstream repositories we don’t control. This has been best practice for years: * No unexpected regressions * Lessened exposure to trojans * Lower latency, better availability Half of us run our own kernels — and other updated packages — on CentOS anyway, so how different is Stretch *really*? >>> Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well? > > This natural / logical thinking, the only one to blame here is IBM/redhat. If you have no regards for maintaining the release period as it was scheduled, and just cut it short by 7-8 years. More professional would have been to announce this for el9, and not change 8 like this. > > How can you trust anything else they are now saying???? How can you know the opensource version of ceph is going to be having restricted features. With such management they will not even inform you. You will be the last to know, like all clients. I think it is a valid concern. I don’t think IBM “owns” Ceph in a way that would let them do that. The scenarios: * Status quo: people with certain corporate postures keep paying for RHCS, others use and contribute to the community release * IBM cuts it loose. OSS forges on. * The Solaris / ZFS phenomenon: fork fork fork. Not all that different from the first scenario. ymmv _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |