4 ms·

>>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

by 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.

Jonanin 6y ago
> 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 And you don't see the problem here? Why do you expect Red Hat to maintain a free OS which targets exactly the same use case as their paid OS? They are not a charity. It would be great to have a free alternative to RHEL, but you shouldn't feel entitled to Red Hat providing that for you.
- 1e-9 6y ago
  > Why do you expect Red Hat to maintain a free OS which targets exactly the same use case as their paid OS? Because they said they would. They could have made the change effective prior to releasing CentOS 8, or they could have made it effective for all versions after CentOS 8. Either of those paths would be understandable. Making the change after many have already migrated to 8 sends the message that Red Hat commitments are not to be trusted.
- syshum 6y ago
  Well first and foremost because the software is open source released under the GPL so yes to any code that is released under the GPL I am entitled to it for free, that is the terms of the license and the fundamental promise of FOSS software Secondly I do not believe I stated anywhere that I was entitled to it, this seems to be a strawman you created in some attempted to project your own beliefs of my motivations In several comments I have stated my biggest issue with RetHat/CentOS announcement was not they were shifting focus, but rather that they did so while reducing their previously stated committed of supporting CentOS 8 until 2029, to 2021. This is a betrayal of trust, and I do believe people are entitled to hold companies to account, and demand they honor their public commits of which RedHat previously committed to supporting CentOS 8 until 2029, and I feel they should honor that commitment. If they want to discontinue the support or shift the focus of the project for future releases then more power to them, the community will take the GPL code as we are entitled and create a replacement CentOS.
freedomben 6y ago
> the fact that CentOS will be used as a "beta" (and spare me the marketing BS claiming it is not that) is the problem If you just want to vent, go ahead. I'm not going to engage with someone assuming bad faith. If you actually care to hear the argument about why saying "beta" is stupid, here it is: 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...
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  > CentOS will no longer be downstream of RHEL as it was previously. CentOS will now be upstream of the next RHEL minor release. This is NOT a “RHEL Beta” That's... what beta means. EDIT: Let me reframe it this way: If CentOS Stream is just becoming RHEL, then why does RHEL exist? If it's truly just as good as the old RHEL was, then explicitly merge them - either give RHEL away 100% freely like CentOS and charge for support, or discontinue the RHEL brand and sell support for CentOS. The fact that you have a downstream RHEL says that that is more stable, because that is what you're willing to sell for money. EDIT2: Actually, thinking it over more and trying to be charitable, I can see a way for that to make sense: If you believe that CentOS is moving to RHEL's spot and RHEL is getting even more stable/slow/tested, then you can say that CentOS isn't getting any worse and ... sort of object to calling it RHEL beta. Except that it still is RHEL-beta, just moved up the scale of stablity.

by syshum 6y ago

Jonanin 6y ago

> 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 And you don't see the problem here? Why do you expect Red Hat to maintain a free OS which targets exactly the same use case as their paid OS? They are not a charity. It would be great to have a free alternative to RHEL, but you shouldn't feel entitled to Red Hat providing that for you.

1e-9 6y ago
> Why do you expect Red Hat to maintain a free OS which targets exactly the same use case as their paid OS? Because they said they would. They could have made the change effective prior to releasing CentOS 8, or they could have made it effective for all versions after CentOS 8. Either of those paths would be understandable. Making the change after many have already migrated to 8 sends the message that Red Hat commitments are not to be trusted.
syshum 6y ago
Well first and foremost because the software is open source released under the GPL so yes to any code that is released under the GPL I am entitled to it for free, that is the terms of the license and the fundamental promise of FOSS software Secondly I do not believe I stated anywhere that I was entitled to it, this seems to be a strawman you created in some attempted to project your own beliefs of my motivations In several comments I have stated my biggest issue with RetHat/CentOS announcement was not they were shifting focus, but rather that they did so while reducing their previously stated committed of supporting CentOS 8 until 2029, to 2021. This is a betrayal of trust, and I do believe people are entitled to hold companies to account, and demand they honor their public commits of which RedHat previously committed to supporting CentOS 8 until 2029, and I feel they should honor that commitment. If they want to discontinue the support or shift the focus of the project for future releases then more power to them, the community will take the GPL code as we are entitled and create a replacement CentOS.

freedomben 6y ago

> the fact that CentOS will be used as a "beta" (and spare me the marketing BS claiming it is not that) is the problem If you just want to vent, go ahead. I'm not going to engage with someone assuming bad faith. If you actually care to hear the argument about why saying "beta" is stupid, here it is: 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...

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
> CentOS will no longer be downstream of RHEL as it was previously. CentOS will now be upstream of the next RHEL minor release. This is NOT a “RHEL Beta” That's... what beta means. EDIT: Let me reframe it this way: If CentOS Stream is just becoming RHEL, then why does RHEL exist? If it's truly just as good as the old RHEL was, then explicitly merge them - either give RHEL away 100% freely like CentOS and charge for support, or discontinue the RHEL brand and sell support for CentOS. The fact that you have a downstream RHEL says that that is more stable, because that is what you're willing to sell for money. EDIT2: Actually, thinking it over more and trying to be charitable, I can see a way for that to make sense: If you believe that CentOS is moving to RHEL's spot and RHEL is getting even more stable/slow/tested, then you can say that CentOS isn't getting any worse and ... sort of object to calling it RHEL beta. Except that it still is RHEL-beta, just moved up the scale of stablity.