6 ms·

> If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not meet your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Ha

by Veen 6y ago

> If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not meet your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Hat about options. Not exactly unexpected, but disappointing: if you want to continue using something like CentOS, pay for RHEL. Lots of web hosting providers will be quite concerned.

mrweasel 6y ago
Why exactly is that disappointing? Isn't it more disappointing that some companies expect to be able to run the same OS for 13 years and get security patches backported for free? I don't think this will hurt RedHat at all. How many RHEL customers are actually generated as a result of providing CentOS for free? Not many I suspect. Those who want to learn about RHEL can still get Fedora, or CentOS Stream, or a RedHat developer license.
- cozzyd 6y ago
  It's a network effect. If you are always around EL machines, you're going to know, want to work with, and recommend EL machines.
- kcb 6y ago
  I disagree I think RHEL and CentOS go/went hand in hand. With RHEL being used and licensed depending on the project or the environment. Binary compatibility and the uniformity of managing both being the big selling point. Now the closest alternative is Canonical with Ubuntu Server which can be installed wherever with no strings and support purchased as required.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    Yeah but how long before Canonical pull the same move as RedHat? The way i see it, Canonical is trying to build a moat (lastly with Snap). I think I'm going back to Debian for my servers. i wish they add 10 years lts though.
    - symlinkk 6y ago
      Debian is exactly like CentOS - community driven. The exact same thing could happen there. If you want guaranteed updates backed by a contract, choose Ubuntu or RHEL.
      - fomine3 6y ago
        Debian is not yet acquired and seems to never happen near the future, that's big difference.
    - bubblethink 6y ago
      >i wish they add 10 years lts though I really don't get this fascination with 10 year LTS. Why is it so hard to upgrade in half a decade ? I mean this is such an arbitrary number. If RHEL started offering 50 year support, people will complain that Debian is 1/10th of RHEL.
      - jmnicolas 6y ago
        I'd take 50 years in a heartbeat. I'm barely Linux literate and I have many many more pressing things to do than upgrade servers. If you want to know more I wrote about it in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25348914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25348914
      - cesarb 6y ago
        > I really don't get this fascination with 10 year LTS. Why is it so hard to upgrade in half a decade ? The ideal situation is never having to upgrade: you buy your computer, install the operating system, and it works the same until you retire it. If your computer has a 5 year warranty, you expect to use it for at least 5 years before retiring it. A 5 year LTS is only 5 years if you install the moment it's released, but that's not usually the case; for instance, there's a new Ubuntu LTS release every 2 years, so in the worst case your LTS installation will last only 3 years. Now consider the "10 year" RHEL LTS: in the worst case (you installed RHEL 7 just before RHEL 8 was released), your LTS installation will last 5 years, perfectly matching the warranty period.
      - 6y ago
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  Because CentOS was once an independent project and Redhat promissed to keep Centos 8 alive till 2029. Security patches are not backports, they are security patches that obviously should be for free, Redhat is making loads of money off free software already.
  - mrweasel 6y ago
    Something like RHEL 6 is running on a 2.6 Linux kernel, all security patches has to be backported. That is an EOL kernel. Almost all versions of the software bundled with RHEL 6 have been EOL from upstream providers during it's ten year lifetime. Of cause you're free to try to attempt to applied any patches yourself, you don't have to pay. If RedHat promised to keep CentOS 8 around for 9 more years, then yes, that is very disappointing. It was a stupid promise to make in the first place, but still disappointing.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      I mean, yes? Backporting fixes and security patches is the entire point of RHEL/CentOS/OEL. And indeed it's upsetting precisely because CentOS was supposed to be supported into 2029 - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.cent...
- adamc 6y ago
  It will hurt indirectly, because a lot of developers/devops/sys admins get skills working on CentOS which are then portable to RHEL. Now they won't. Network effects of being popular are significant.
- ueshiba9 6y ago
  Agree, "customers" who use CentOS are not paying for Linux and won't pay for any other distro. Somebody has to work to provide a stable distro and supported on many hardwares, hypervisors/clouds and softwares running on top of OS. But the funny things is that usually there is a huge contradiction on people who uses CentOS on production, they are the same people who pays for proprietary software like Windows, Office, Oracle DB, VMware, etc... sometimes spend millions of dollars on these softwares, but save some bucks using a free Linux distro!! But I do respect the ones who are entirely open source, just don't think any big company besides Google for example, would have a huge IT teams to support everything

by Veen 6y ago

mrweasel 6y ago

Why exactly is that disappointing? Isn't it more disappointing that some companies expect to be able to run the same OS for 13 years and get security patches backported for free? I don't think this will hurt RedHat at all. How many RHEL customers are actually generated as a result of providing CentOS for free? Not many I suspect. Those who want to learn about RHEL can still get Fedora, or CentOS Stream, or a RedHat developer license.

cozzyd 6y ago
It's a network effect. If you are always around EL machines, you're going to know, want to work with, and recommend EL machines.
kcb 6y ago
I disagree I think RHEL and CentOS go/went hand in hand. With RHEL being used and licensed depending on the project or the environment. Binary compatibility and the uniformity of managing both being the big selling point. Now the closest alternative is Canonical with Ubuntu Server which can be installed wherever with no strings and support purchased as required.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  Yeah but how long before Canonical pull the same move as RedHat? The way i see it, Canonical is trying to build a moat (lastly with Snap). I think I'm going back to Debian for my servers. i wish they add 10 years lts though.
  - symlinkk 6y ago
    Debian is exactly like CentOS - community driven. The exact same thing could happen there. If you want guaranteed updates backed by a contract, choose Ubuntu or RHEL.
    - fomine3 6y ago
      Debian is not yet acquired and seems to never happen near the future, that's big difference.
  - bubblethink 6y ago
    >i wish they add 10 years lts though I really don't get this fascination with 10 year LTS. Why is it so hard to upgrade in half a decade ? I mean this is such an arbitrary number. If RHEL started offering 50 year support, people will complain that Debian is 1/10th of RHEL.
    - jmnicolas 6y ago
      I'd take 50 years in a heartbeat. I'm barely Linux literate and I have many many more pressing things to do than upgrade servers. If you want to know more I wrote about it in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25348914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25348914
    - cesarb 6y ago
      > I really don't get this fascination with 10 year LTS. Why is it so hard to upgrade in half a decade ? The ideal situation is never having to upgrade: you buy your computer, install the operating system, and it works the same until you retire it. If your computer has a 5 year warranty, you expect to use it for at least 5 years before retiring it. A 5 year LTS is only 5 years if you install the moment it's released, but that's not usually the case; for instance, there's a new Ubuntu LTS release every 2 years, so in the worst case your LTS installation will last only 3 years. Now consider the "10 year" RHEL LTS: in the worst case (you installed RHEL 7 just before RHEL 8 was released), your LTS installation will last 5 years, perfectly matching the warranty period.
    - 6y ago
posix_me_less 6y ago
Because CentOS was once an independent project and Redhat promissed to keep Centos 8 alive till 2029. Security patches are not backports, they are security patches that obviously should be for free, Redhat is making loads of money off free software already.
- mrweasel 6y ago
  Something like RHEL 6 is running on a 2.6 Linux kernel, all security patches has to be backported. That is an EOL kernel. Almost all versions of the software bundled with RHEL 6 have been EOL from upstream providers during it's ten year lifetime. Of cause you're free to try to attempt to applied any patches yourself, you don't have to pay. If RedHat promised to keep CentOS 8 around for 9 more years, then yes, that is very disappointing. It was a stupid promise to make in the first place, but still disappointing.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    I mean, yes? Backporting fixes and security patches is the entire point of RHEL/CentOS/OEL. And indeed it's upsetting precisely because CentOS was supposed to be supported into 2029 - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.cent...
adamc 6y ago
It will hurt indirectly, because a lot of developers/devops/sys admins get skills working on CentOS which are then portable to RHEL. Now they won't. Network effects of being popular are significant.
ueshiba9 6y ago
Agree, "customers" who use CentOS are not paying for Linux and won't pay for any other distro. Somebody has to work to provide a stable distro and supported on many hardwares, hypervisors/clouds and softwares running on top of OS. But the funny things is that usually there is a huge contradiction on people who uses CentOS on production, they are the same people who pays for proprietary software like Windows, Office, Oracle DB, VMware, etc... sometimes spend millions of dollars on these softwares, but save some bucks using a free Linux distro!! But I do respect the ones who are entirely open source, just don't think any big company besides Google for example, would have a huge IT teams to support everything