4 ms·

Sorry but yes CentOS is dead CentOS, is COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE OPERATING SYSTEM The community is dead, the Enterprise part of the Operating system is dead Sur

by syshum 6y ago

Sorry but yes CentOS is dead CentOS, is COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE OPERATING SYSTEM The community is dead, the Enterprise part of the Operating system is dead Sure the CentOS name will be still around, but is clear that CentOS is now a Dev focused operating system not designed or targeted for Stable Enterprise operations with a community of Enterprise SysAdmins around it If you believe the changes are "not all the much" then you are clearly not in touch with the user base of CentOS, outside of Devs that is The changes are GREAT for devs, and Appliance Manufacturers. Maybe even for Cloud customers But for us Old School, OnPrem sysadmins running CentOS for Stability, and Long Term Support, CentOS is most certainly dead

freedomben 6y ago
> is clear that CentOS is now a Dev focused operating system not designed or targeted for Stable Enterprise operations with a community of Enterprise SysAdmins around it This is absolutely not true. Would you have described RHEL this way? If not, then you shouldn't describe CentOS this way either. CentOS took RHEL's place in the chain. Instead of Cent being downstream of RHEL, the two were swapped around. > If you believe the changes are "not all the much" then you are clearly not in touch with the user base of CentOS, outside of Devs that is Say what you will. I've been using Cent since 2012 and currently run numerous workloads in production on it. I've shipped SaaS products on top of it and have been responsible for widespread maintenance. I've been a package maintainer for numerous packages as well. > But for us Old School, OnPrem sysadmins running CentOS for Stability, and Long Term Support, CentOS is most certainly dead I know plenty of old school on prem sysadmins who run CentOS for stability and LTS (I'm one of them. I have 3 bare metal machines in prod at the moment running CentOS). I may go with Rocky for one of those machines (it's a router/load balancer), I haven't fully decided yet. That said I agree with you somewhat, that is the one area where this change could be somewhat negative. However, with CentOS being week and months behind RHEL right now, do you see that as a good thing? Do you like having an unpatched system for days or weeks at a time when an embargoed security fix hits RHEL and has to wait for CentOS to build and distribute? I don't. Security patches are top priority for me. Edit: Blog post mentioned is now live: https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877?sk=e500c2f16403d634ff8a4ea17d705252 https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop...
- chasil 6y ago
  Easy problem to solve. https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/ https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/ Similar to forcing Microsoft or Google to prompt the user for their desired browser or search provider, it would be interesting if rhel was forced to prompt for a repo provider. It would have been wiser to splash rhel support upgrades on CentOS gdm or cli cockpit than to threaten to kill a product. Really, what were you thinking? Nazgul indeed! Fork you! Old habits die hard.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    Ha! Red Hat is too evil so you move to Oracle :‑D > Really, what were you thinking? Nazgul indeed! Fork you! Glad we were able to have a productive conversation
    - chasil 6y ago
      Oracle offered freedom from the perspective of rhel, and I used it. I actually was granted IPO shares because of the things I wrote two decades ago. I think there was a fundamental misjudgment in what you have done. Oracle is more expensive on most tiers, but offers a $100 support level (forum-only, with updates) that undercuts all rhel agreements. Had you offered this support level, and advocated it (as I said) with gdm and CLI advertisements, you might have kept a great many in the fold. You did not do this, and now Oracle updated their repo conversion for CentOS 8. It is not too late. You should reconsider.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>However, with CentOS being week and months behind RHEL right now, do you see that as a good thing? Do you like having an unpatched system for days or weeks at a time when an embargoed security fix hits RHEL and has to wait for CentOS to build and distribute? I don't. Security patches are top priority for me. This is absolutely a False dilemma fallacy, there is absolutely nothing technically or legally prohibiting RedHat from releasing patches for both at the same time. Nothing. It is a sales/marketing or a internal process choice to do it that way. Changes to do this process, even moving CentOS to be ahead of RHEL is not the problem. The "rolling release" or non-release, or what every model they are calling it now with CentOS Stream is the problem. The fact that it will no longer be Binary Complete with RHEL is the problem, the fact that CentOS will be used as a "beta" (and spare me the marketing BS claiming it is not that) is the problem > Would you have described RHEL this way? RHEL is a targeted, Released Enterprise Operating system with a 10 year support cycle CentOS was a targeted, Released Enterprise Operating system with a 10 year support cycle CentOS Stream is not a targeted, released Enterprise operating system with 10 year support cycle. CentOS Stream is pseudo-rolling release with no point releases, used to build a targeted, released enterprise operating system.
kd913 6y ago
I don't work for Red Hat, but I saw a post that was saying that there is something in the works to fill the niche that CentOS offered. It just wasn't ready yet so the announcement hasn't been made yet. However, they needed to send a statement out regarding CentOS so companies were aware of what would be happening with CentOS 8 and perhaps avoid migration right now. For a community that depends on LTS, the sysadmins seem to make some rash decisions/drama. I think the logical decision here would surely be to wait and see what happens and make a decision in a year when support ending would actually become relevant.
- syshum 6y ago
  Some of this is timing. Many many many companies, right or wrong, wait until the very list minute to upgrade their legacy systems. Many of us are either still in the process or worse just finish our migration from CentOS 6 to CentOS 8, only to have the rug pulled out from under us. The sheer impact this move will have on many organizations is what is driving this emotional reaction If they would have honored the LifeCycle for CentOS 8, there would not have been the reaction you have seen 100% of the emotion / drama is coming from the choice RedHat has made to cut the supported life of CentOS 8 by 7 years. that is a DRASTIC action, and their belief that 12 months is "enough time" shows a clear ignorance of how the product is used in enterprise or they fully understand and are banking on the desperation of enterprise to sell RHEL licenses. either way it drastic choice by RedHat.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    Well, we mostly agree! I agree with everything until: > their belief that 12 months is "enough time" shows a clear ignorance of how the product is used in enterprise or they fully understand and are banking on the desperation of enterprise to sell RHEL licenses. There's another explanation, and I think it makes a little more sense than yours which would require Red Hat, literally the company whose core job it is (which they are damn good at, enough so that you use it) to provide an enterprise distribution to some of the most conservative companies on the planet, to not understand how the product is used in enterprise. The suggestion that RH is "banking on the desperation of enterprise to sell RHEL licenses" at least makes sense given the facts, and that's kind of what I thought too when I first saw the news (the way they worded it sure made it seem like this was a money grab). It is possible however (and indeed this is my belief) that Red Hat doesn't consider Stream to be that big of a change, and they've given a full year to migrate. Indeed if you read my blog post[1] I don't think it's that big of a deal. I have zero inside info on this but I would bet highly that sales of RHEL were a factor in this decision for sure. I don't see how they couldn't be. But given how long Red Hat has been providing all their sources publicly (which they DON'T have to do) and acquiring and open sourcing companies, you don't give them even a tiny benefit of the doubt here that maybe their not just one-sided evil capitalists trying to squeeze nickels out of the CentOS community for short term gains? [1]: https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877?sk=e500c2f16403d634ff8a4ea17d705252 https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop...

by syshum 6y ago

freedomben 6y ago

> is clear that CentOS is now a Dev focused operating system not designed or targeted for Stable Enterprise operations with a community of Enterprise SysAdmins around it This is absolutely not true. Would you have described RHEL this way? If not, then you shouldn't describe CentOS this way either. CentOS took RHEL's place in the chain. Instead of Cent being downstream of RHEL, the two were swapped around. > If you believe the changes are "not all the much" then you are clearly not in touch with the user base of CentOS, outside of Devs that is Say what you will. I've been using Cent since 2012 and currently run numerous workloads in production on it. I've shipped SaaS products on top of it and have been responsible for widespread maintenance. I've been a package maintainer for numerous packages as well. > But for us Old School, OnPrem sysadmins running CentOS for Stability, and Long Term Support, CentOS is most certainly dead I know plenty of old school on prem sysadmins who run CentOS for stability and LTS (I'm one of them. I have 3 bare metal machines in prod at the moment running CentOS). I may go with Rocky for one of those machines (it's a router/load balancer), I haven't fully decided yet. That said I agree with you somewhat, that is the one area where this change could be somewhat negative. However, with CentOS being week and months behind RHEL right now, do you see that as a good thing? Do you like having an unpatched system for days or weeks at a time when an embargoed security fix hits RHEL and has to wait for CentOS to build and distribute? I don't. Security patches are top priority for me. Edit: Blog post mentioned is now live: https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877?sk=e500c2f16403d634ff8a4ea17d705252 https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop...

chasil 6y ago
Easy problem to solve. https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/ https://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/ Similar to forcing Microsoft or Google to prompt the user for their desired browser or search provider, it would be interesting if rhel was forced to prompt for a repo provider. It would have been wiser to splash rhel support upgrades on CentOS gdm or cli cockpit than to threaten to kill a product. Really, what were you thinking? Nazgul indeed! Fork you! Old habits die hard.
- freedomben 6y ago
  Ha! Red Hat is too evil so you move to Oracle :‑D > Really, what were you thinking? Nazgul indeed! Fork you! Glad we were able to have a productive conversation
  - chasil 6y ago
    Oracle offered freedom from the perspective of rhel, and I used it. I actually was granted IPO shares because of the things I wrote two decades ago. I think there was a fundamental misjudgment in what you have done. Oracle is more expensive on most tiers, but offers a $100 support level (forum-only, with updates) that undercuts all rhel agreements. Had you offered this support level, and advocated it (as I said) with gdm and CLI advertisements, you might have kept a great many in the fold. You did not do this, and now Oracle updated their repo conversion for CentOS 8. It is not too late. You should reconsider.
syshum 6y ago
>>However, with CentOS being week and months behind RHEL right now, do you see that as a good thing? Do you like having an unpatched system for days or weeks at a time when an embargoed security fix hits RHEL and has to wait for CentOS to build and distribute? I don't. Security patches are top priority for me. This is absolutely a False dilemma fallacy, there is absolutely nothing technically or legally prohibiting RedHat from releasing patches for both at the same time. Nothing. It is a sales/marketing or a internal process choice to do it that way. Changes to do this process, even moving CentOS to be ahead of RHEL is not the problem. The "rolling release" or non-release, or what every model they are calling it now with CentOS Stream is the problem. The fact that it will no longer be Binary Complete with RHEL is the problem, the fact that CentOS will be used as a "beta" (and spare me the marketing BS claiming it is not that) is the problem > Would you have described RHEL this way? RHEL is a targeted, Released Enterprise Operating system with a 10 year support cycle CentOS was a targeted, Released Enterprise Operating system with a 10 year support cycle CentOS Stream is not a targeted, released Enterprise operating system with 10 year support cycle. CentOS Stream is pseudo-rolling release with no point releases, used to build a targeted, released enterprise operating system.

kd913 6y ago

I don't work for Red Hat, but I saw a post that was saying that there is something in the works to fill the niche that CentOS offered. It just wasn't ready yet so the announcement hasn't been made yet. However, they needed to send a statement out regarding CentOS so companies were aware of what would be happening with CentOS 8 and perhaps avoid migration right now. For a community that depends on LTS, the sysadmins seem to make some rash decisions/drama. I think the logical decision here would surely be to wait and see what happens and make a decision in a year when support ending would actually become relevant.

syshum 6y ago
Some of this is timing. Many many many companies, right or wrong, wait until the very list minute to upgrade their legacy systems. Many of us are either still in the process or worse just finish our migration from CentOS 6 to CentOS 8, only to have the rug pulled out from under us. The sheer impact this move will have on many organizations is what is driving this emotional reaction If they would have honored the LifeCycle for CentOS 8, there would not have been the reaction you have seen 100% of the emotion / drama is coming from the choice RedHat has made to cut the supported life of CentOS 8 by 7 years. that is a DRASTIC action, and their belief that 12 months is "enough time" shows a clear ignorance of how the product is used in enterprise or they fully understand and are banking on the desperation of enterprise to sell RHEL licenses. either way it drastic choice by RedHat.
- freedomben 6y ago
  Well, we mostly agree! I agree with everything until: > their belief that 12 months is "enough time" shows a clear ignorance of how the product is used in enterprise or they fully understand and are banking on the desperation of enterprise to sell RHEL licenses. There's another explanation, and I think it makes a little more sense than yours which would require Red Hat, literally the company whose core job it is (which they are damn good at, enough so that you use it) to provide an enterprise distribution to some of the most conservative companies on the planet, to not understand how the product is used in enterprise. The suggestion that RH is "banking on the desperation of enterprise to sell RHEL licenses" at least makes sense given the facts, and that's kind of what I thought too when I first saw the news (the way they worded it sure made it seem like this was a money grab). It is possible however (and indeed this is my belief) that Red Hat doesn't consider Stream to be that big of a change, and they've given a full year to migrate. Indeed if you read my blog post[1] I don't think it's that big of a deal. I have zero inside info on this but I would bet highly that sales of RHEL were a factor in this decision for sure. I don't see how they couldn't be. But given how long Red Hat has been providing all their sources publicly (which they DON'T have to do) and acquiring and open sourcing companies, you don't give them even a tiny benefit of the doubt here that maybe their not just one-sided evil capitalists trying to squeeze nickels out of the CentOS community for short term gains? [1]: https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877?sk=e500c2f16403d634ff8a4ea17d705252 https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop...