5 ms·

> CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end at the end of 2021 Does this mean that CentOS 8 is EOL come 2021? Weren't maintenance updates meant to go to

by messe 6y ago

> CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end at the end of 2021 Does this mean that CentOS 8 is EOL come 2021? Weren't maintenance updates meant to go to 2029? What about everybody who built their product on the assumption that there would be a stable CentOS until then?

kcb 6y ago
Yes. https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product It used to be this. https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.cent...
- folkrav 6y ago
  Wow. Violently disingenuous.
- sjs382 6y ago
  Yup. Edited today. Why even publish the EOL dates, at this point? They're meaningless. That page is a Wiki and here is the diff between the current version and the previous: https://wiki.centos.org/action/info/About/Product?action=diff&rev2=123&rev1=122 https://wiki.centos.org/action/info/About/Product?action=dif...
- moray 6y ago
  Wow.. I literally just migrated my main production mail server to centos8 hoping to let it run for another 10 years... I guess it is time to study alternatives..
em500 6y ago
> Does this mean that CentOS 8 is EOL come 2021? They've just eradicated almost all mentions of CentOS 8 from their main website. So: yes. > What about everybody who built their product on the assumption that there would be a stable CentOS until then? They just got what they paid for?
- messe 6y ago
  > They just got what they paid for? Haha, fair. To be honest, I'm surprised it took this long for it to happen after CentOS joined Red Hat. I wonder if the IBM acquisition had any influence on this.
- centimeter 6y ago
  > They just got what they paid for? Funny, but isn't this totally reasonable grounds for an adverse possession claim against RHEL? If a business claims they're going to keep doing something, and you build your business on that claim, and then they change their mind, you can have grounds to sue. Or, at least, that's what I vaguely remember from reading about AP law.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    That is not at all what adverse possession is.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    That's not adverse possession. I think you are referring to promissory estoppel: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel# https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel#
  - acomjean 6y ago
    I think the problem is that it’s not like red hat has a contractual obligation with other businesses since Centos is essentially “free” and likely there isnt an agreement.
- mulmen 6y ago
  > They just got what they paid for? Not really. If you depend on CentOS it is reasonable you would contribute to it. There has to be a nonzero number of CentOS users that contributed to the project ("paid") that are now left holding the bag.
  - jlgaddis 6y ago

by messe 6y ago

kcb 6y ago

Yes. https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product It used to be this. https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.cent...

folkrav 6y ago
Wow. Violently disingenuous.
sjs382 6y ago
Yup. Edited today. Why even publish the EOL dates, at this point? They're meaningless. That page is a Wiki and here is the diff between the current version and the previous: https://wiki.centos.org/action/info/About/Product?action=diff&rev2=123&rev1=122 https://wiki.centos.org/action/info/About/Product?action=dif...
moray 6y ago
Wow.. I literally just migrated my main production mail server to centos8 hoping to let it run for another 10 years... I guess it is time to study alternatives..

em500 6y ago

> Does this mean that CentOS 8 is EOL come 2021? They've just eradicated almost all mentions of CentOS 8 from their main website. So: yes. > What about everybody who built their product on the assumption that there would be a stable CentOS until then? They just got what they paid for?

messe 6y ago
> They just got what they paid for? Haha, fair. To be honest, I'm surprised it took this long for it to happen after CentOS joined Red Hat. I wonder if the IBM acquisition had any influence on this.
centimeter 6y ago
> They just got what they paid for? Funny, but isn't this totally reasonable grounds for an adverse possession claim against RHEL? If a business claims they're going to keep doing something, and you build your business on that claim, and then they change their mind, you can have grounds to sue. Or, at least, that's what I vaguely remember from reading about AP law.
- beervirus 6y ago
  That is not at all what adverse possession is.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  That's not adverse possession. I think you are referring to promissory estoppel: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel# https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel#
- acomjean 6y ago
  I think the problem is that it’s not like red hat has a contractual obligation with other businesses since Centos is essentially “free” and likely there isnt an agreement.
mulmen 6y ago
> They just got what they paid for? Not really. If you depend on CentOS it is reasonable you would contribute to it. There has to be a nonzero number of CentOS users that contributed to the project ("paid") that are now left holding the bag.
- jlgaddis 6y ago