6 ms·

I agree that RH's move is selfish and counterproductive, but I don't really agree with the "betrayal" rhetoric, except in a very limited sense. The core CentOS

by gwd 6y ago

I agree that RH's move is selfish and counterproductive, but I don't really agree with the "betrayal" rhetoric, except in a very limited sense. The core CentOS devs who were "acquired", along with the people from other RHEL-clone projects like Scientific Linux who merged with CentOS, are being stiffed here; but arguably they should have known they were making this kind of a risk when they agreed to be acquired with a governance structure that allowed RH to overrule whatever the CentOS Board did. The users of CentOS have no right to be upset whatsoever. They've been benefitting from millions of man-hours of engineering time RedHat have spent making RHEL without paying a penny for it. Granted this all benefitted RedHat, but that's beside the point -- if you don't have a two-way relationship with someone, you don't have any right to be upset when they change direction. Pre-2014, all of those users should have recognized that the group making CentOS might disappear at any time, leaving them having to switch away from their current setup; post-2014, all of those users should have recognized that RedHat might change their attitude at any time, leaving them having to switch away from their current setup. They chose to take that risk because it was free. Now it's time to pay the piper.

theevilsharpie 6y ago
The "betrayal" sentiment comes from Red Hat reneging on their commitment to support CentOS 8 in particular. Prior to this announcement, Red Hat promised to support CentOS 8 until 2029 (the same life cycle as RHEL 8), and I have no doubt that many organizations made the decision to invest in and deploy CentOS 8 based on that promised lifetime. With CentOS 8 effectively dead at the end of 2021, that leaves those organizations less than a year to find another solution. The fact that CentOS 7 will remain supported until 2024 (which was Red Hat's initial commitment) makes this situation even more awkward for the engineers that advocated for CentOS 8. Now, you could argue that these organizations have been free-loading off of Red Hat and got what they paid for, but it's understandable why people are upset. If Red Hat had made this decision earlier (i.e., making CentOS 7 the last version), or made good on their promise to support CentOS 8, I doubt there would be anywhere near as much outrage.
- gwd 6y ago
  > ...it's understandable why people are upset. If Red Hat had made this decision earlier (i.e., making CentOS 7 the last version), or made good on their promise to support CentOS 8, I doubt there would be anywhere near as much outrage. Yes, they certainly broke their public commitment; I totally agree that they should have either announced that there would be no CentOS 8 from the beginning, or announced that CentOS 8 would be the last such beast, and after that CentOS would be stream-only. And it would be totally reasonable for the rest of us to take RedHat's other public commitments with a grain of salt from now on. But that doesn't rise to the level of "betrayal" to me. To me, betrayal implies a stronger sense of obligation -- generally from mutual dependence. I just don't think that organizations have that much obligation to people who are consuming their loss-leader. (See also Travis-ci.)
  - op00to 6y ago
    Where is this commitment written?
    - theevilsharpie 6y ago
      > Where is this commitment written? In the public documentation describing CentOS's life cycle, CentOS 8 was described as being supported until May 31st, 2029. Upon the announcement of CentOS's change of direction, this was changed to December 31st, 2021. You can see the commit diff here: https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product?action=diff&rev1=123&rev2=122 https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product?action=diff&rev1=123&r...
      - op00to 6y ago
        Not on redhat.com or done by a red hat employee? I see.
        theevilsharpie 6y ago
        The CentOS project and all of its assets (including its web site) are owned and managed by Red Hat, and the person that made the commit changing the documented end-of-life date -- Rich Bowen -- is a Red Hat employee with an @redhat.com email address.
AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
I'd be far less offended and not at all betrayed if they hadn't shortened the support life for CentOS 8 from another 9 years to like 380 more days.

by gwd 6y ago

theevilsharpie 6y ago

The "betrayal" sentiment comes from Red Hat reneging on their commitment to support CentOS 8 in particular. Prior to this announcement, Red Hat promised to support CentOS 8 until 2029 (the same life cycle as RHEL 8), and I have no doubt that many organizations made the decision to invest in and deploy CentOS 8 based on that promised lifetime. With CentOS 8 effectively dead at the end of 2021, that leaves those organizations less than a year to find another solution. The fact that CentOS 7 will remain supported until 2024 (which was Red Hat's initial commitment) makes this situation even more awkward for the engineers that advocated for CentOS 8. Now, you could argue that these organizations have been free-loading off of Red Hat and got what they paid for, but it's understandable why people are upset. If Red Hat had made this decision earlier (i.e., making CentOS 7 the last version), or made good on their promise to support CentOS 8, I doubt there would be anywhere near as much outrage.

gwd 6y ago
> ...it's understandable why people are upset. If Red Hat had made this decision earlier (i.e., making CentOS 7 the last version), or made good on their promise to support CentOS 8, I doubt there would be anywhere near as much outrage. Yes, they certainly broke their public commitment; I totally agree that they should have either announced that there would be no CentOS 8 from the beginning, or announced that CentOS 8 would be the last such beast, and after that CentOS would be stream-only. And it would be totally reasonable for the rest of us to take RedHat's other public commitments with a grain of salt from now on. But that doesn't rise to the level of "betrayal" to me. To me, betrayal implies a stronger sense of obligation -- generally from mutual dependence. I just don't think that organizations have that much obligation to people who are consuming their loss-leader. (See also Travis-ci.)
- op00to 6y ago
  Where is this commitment written?
  - theevilsharpie 6y ago
    > Where is this commitment written? In the public documentation describing CentOS's life cycle, CentOS 8 was described as being supported until May 31st, 2029. Upon the announcement of CentOS's change of direction, this was changed to December 31st, 2021. You can see the commit diff here: https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product?action=diff&rev1=123&rev2=122 https://wiki.centos.org/About/Product?action=diff&rev1=123&r...
    - op00to 6y ago
      Not on redhat.com or done by a red hat employee? I see.
      - theevilsharpie 6y ago
        The CentOS project and all of its assets (including its web site) are owned and managed by Red Hat, and the person that made the commit changing the documented end-of-life date -- Rich Bowen -- is a Red Hat employee with an @redhat.com email address.

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago

I'd be far less offended and not at all betrayed if they hadn't shortened the support life for CentOS 8 from another 9 years to like 380 more days.