On 08.07.21 14:38, Gionatan Danti wrote:> Il 2021-07-08 13:22 Nikolaos Milas ha scritto: >> If some people want to leave the RHEL ecosystem for Debian or FreeBSD, >> that's OK. But for those who want to stay in the RHEL world, Rocky >> Linux stands as a rock-solid solution. This opinion does not reject >> other CentOS clones, but emphasizes the fact that Rocky Linux appears >> to be a solid option for now and the years to come. > > While true, I also feel that RH is trying to actively shape its > distribution away from small enterprise needs. For example, common > packages are deprecated and/or removed (eg: virt-manager, screen, > kernel-side DRBD, pam_mysql, etc) and EPEL 8 (which is fundamental to my > CentOS/Rocky installations) is in a bad state.Maybe "we" could fill this gap? Describe this state of EPEL? Did you requested such missing packages? From the early on (EL8.0) I requested such EPEL packages, some fedora maintainers branched there packages into EPEL8. Even a request for a devel package was honored and the rpm was included by RH later in 8.1. This is a community, so communicate! Everything else is a product in ready state that must be paid.> My impression is that RH is following cloud vendors & hyperscale needs - > with Stream as a clear example. This is not an inherently bad thing, but > it quite different from what the small and medium businesses I service > need. > > So, while closely watching RH/CentOS/Rocky, I am going to steer new > deployments on Ubuntu LTS or Debian. > Regards. >-- Leon
On 8/7/2021 5:46 ?.?., Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:> ?aybe "we" could fill this gap? Describe this state of EPEL? Did you > requested such missing packages? From the early on (EL8.0) I requested > such EPEL packages, some fedora maintainers branched there packages into > EPEL8. Even a request for a devel package was honored and the rpm was > included by RH later in 8.1. This is a community, so communicate! > Everything else is a product in ready state that must be paid.+1 In a lot of circumstances we do not invest a bit of time to participate in such community joint efforts and this has a significant cost for all of us in the long run. Let's all be more active in our communities if we want them to remain strong, as Leon suggests. Cheers, Nick
Il 2021-07-08 16:46 Leon Fauster via CentOS ha scritto:> Maybe "we" could fill this gap? Describe this state of EPEL? Did you > requested such missing packages? From the early on (EL8.0) I requested > such EPEL packages, some fedora maintainers branched there packages > into > EPEL8. Even a request for a devel package was honored and the rpm was > included by RH later in 8.1. This is a community, so communicate! > Everything else is a product in ready state that must be paid.For what it is worth, I opened various RH bugzilla enhancement request in the 10+ years of using CentOS. One of the last: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902781 That said, lets face in: current CentOS is not really a community, at least in the sense that a community can steer the project direction. Nobody polled for Stream or asked about it. Stream simply happened due to an unilateral Red Hat decision. *Which is PERFECTLY fine*, unless trying to masking it behind the "community" word. My view is that RH/CentOS would be relatively inadequate for many roles without the outstanding work done by EPEL and the rest of the CentOS community, unless you are an hyperscaler who can do its own internal package additions. Red Hat failing to recognize the enormous value of EPEL and former CentOS model really baffles me. Regards. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti at assyoma.it - info at assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8