3 ms·
It's worse than frustrating, it's damaging for Red Hat. It doesn't matter much to me anymore, I've already migrated my small business internal server that was
by LeifCarrotson 6y ago
It's worse than frustrating, it's damaging for Red Hat.
It doesn't matter much to me anymore, I've already migrated my small business internal server that was running Centos 7 to Debian. We had basically just a fileserver, FTP box, and a couple VMs for some time clock, wiki, and building security systems, so nothing we were running yet was CentOS specific.
But in case it can be useful to you, please share with your team that the writing they're putting on the wall looks pretty bad. Knowing I'd have to update eventually, I just took the safe option, which is no longer any distro controlled by Red Hat. I didn't want to leave our server in a state where we could be building dependencies on a platform that was likely to be pulled out from under us, and while RHEL isn't too expensive to just buy for one server, and we might have qualified for something free or something you've not yet announced, my test was surprisingly painless and the migration was easier than I anticipated.
- syshum 6y agoI Agree 100% RedHat seems to forget the for the majority of CentOS users STABLITY was the driving factor in the choice to use CentOS. I am not sure what internal metrics they have, or if I am missing a glaring use case somewhere but from where I sit RedHat seems to completely miss the boat as to who is using CentOS in the real world. I want STABLE UNCHANGING SECURE systems, not the latest and greatest features, or some new shiny "cloudy" technology...
- ghaff 6y agoAnd yet you're not willing to pay for it.
- syshum 6y agoI dont drive those decisions butI will say if they had better "no support" options my org probably would buy it. We have no desire for RHEL support, they had had bad experiences in the past which was one of the driving reason to drop RHEL for CentOS, why pay for support if it sucks?