4 ms·

> 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 everyb

by 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
  > There has to be a nonzero number of CentOS users that contributed to the project ... Not really. Just TRY to "contribute" to CentOS. You can't. CentOS hasn't been a "community" enterprise operating system for years.

by em500 6y ago

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
> There has to be a nonzero number of CentOS users that contributed to the project ... Not really. Just TRY to "contribute" to CentOS. You can't. CentOS hasn't been a "community" enterprise operating system for years.