On 12/15/20 9:59 PM, Joshua Kramer wrote:> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> $250K is not even close. That is one employee, when you also take into >> account unemployment insurance, HR, medical insurance etc. now multiply >> that by 8. Now, outfit those 8 employees to work from home .. all over >> the world, different countries, different laws. > > I'm genuinely curious about something, and this is mostly academic > since it's probably the subject of proprietary discussions within > RedHat. Presumably, RedHat had a build pipeline for RHEL that worked > well for them, by supplying alpha/beta releases of point releases to > their customers and giving them time to "cook" before releasing those > point releases into production. Why would RedHat invest millions more > in buying the CentOS process just to have CentOS act as the beta?Why did they change the development process of RHEL .. Because they want to do the development in the community. The current process of RHEL development is closed .. they want it to be open. It is that simple. I think Stream is also very usable as a distro. I think it will be just as usable as CentOS Linux is now. It is not a beta .. I keep saying that. Before a .0 release (the main, or first, main reelase) is a beta. Point releases do not really need betas .. certainly not open to anyone other than customers. Now CentOS Stream is available all the time to everyone, customer or not. Once the full infrastructure is in place, everyone (not just RHEL customers) can provide feed back and bugs, do pull requests, etc. All users can also interact with all interim versions of packages, not just the items that get released. You can also see what is coming at any time if you are a RHEL customer. If you are building things for RHEL .. you can build against what will be the RHEL + 0.1 source code. You (as the developer) can also make that open to public / community. Developers can also do SIGs in CentOS Stream.
On 12/16/20 10:50 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:> Why did they change the development process of RHEL .. Because they > want to do the development in the community. The current process of > RHEL development is closed .. they want it to be open. It is that simple.Johnny, let me say first of all thanks for these years of hard work.? I for one am grateful for your continued and dogged pursuit of what must be a mostly thankless task.? Thanks for the explanations from your point of view of this transition, too. Having said that, I believe that in terms of RHEL development and transparency that CentOS Stream will be a very big win.? With working resolutions to the 'unsupported by Red Hat but not third-party out-of-tree driver kABI breaks frequently' and 'third-party out-of-tree hardware driver kABI breaks frequently' issues I'm sure it can be a very usable system for what I need CentOS for.? And it will be very nice to be able to have actual feedback that might actually make a difference in the development of each next point release.? That will work nicely for my main daily driver laptop.? Maybe or maybe not for my servers; that has yet to be seen. But as I posted in my reply to Mike McGrath, Red Hat's reneging on the September 24, 2019 statement that "nothing changes" for CentOS, especially CentOS 8, still smarts.? A lot.? (I know it must be worse for you and the other devs.)
On 16.12.2020 22:50, Johnny Hughes wrote:> On 12/15/20 9:59 PM, Joshua Kramer wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >> >>> $250K is not even close. That is one employee, when you also take into >>> account unemployment insurance, HR, medical insurance etc. now multiply >>> that by 8. Now, outfit those 8 employees to work from home .. all over >>> the world, different countries, different laws. >> >> I'm genuinely curious about something, and this is mostly academic >> since it's probably the subject of proprietary discussions within >> RedHat. Presumably, RedHat had a build pipeline for RHEL that worked >> well for them, by supplying alpha/beta releases of point releases to >> their customers and giving them time to "cook" before releasing those >> point releases into production. Why would RedHat invest millions more >> in buying the CentOS process just to have CentOS act as the beta? > > Why did they change the development process of RHEL .. > > Because they want to do the development in the community. The current > process of RHEL development is closed .. they want it to be open. It is > that simple. > > I think Stream is also very usable as a distro. I think it will be just > as usable as CentOS Linux is now.It's usable, as Fedora is certainly usable - in its separate use cases. It's not bug-for-bug copy of current RHEL, so it's *not* as usable as CentOS Linux was.> It is not a beta .. I keep saying that. Before a .0 release (the main, > or first, main reelase) is a beta. Point releases do not really need > betas .. certainly not open to anyone other than customers. Now CentOS > Stream is available all the time to everyone, customer or not. Once the > full infrastructure is in place, everyone (not just RHEL customers) can > provide feed back and bugs, do pull requests, etc.Now please tell me whether Chris Wright was lying when saying the below to ZDNet: "To be exact, CentOS Stream is an upstream development platform for ecosystem developers. It will be updated several times a day. This is not a production operating system. It's purely a developer's distro." It's purely a developer's distro. Shall I explain difference between a developer's distro and the one suitable for production servers (a rhetoric question)? -- Sincerely, Konstantin Boyandin system administrator (ProWide Labs Ltd. - IPHost Network Monitor)