CentOS - Dec 2020 - https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/

On 12/8/20 2:01 PM, centos at niob.at wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 12/8/20 8:35 AM, Bill Gee wrote:
>>> Aside from the the latest shiny - what are the advantages of CentOS
8
>>> Stream?? What are the benefits?
>>>
>>> I read through the announcement and FAQ, but they do not address
that
>>> question.? Is it just a name change?? Is it an attempt to put
CentOS
>>> on a subscription model?
>>>
>> Stream is the RHEL sorce code for rhel + 0.1 .. so durng the 8.3 rhel
>> cycle, stream will be rhel 8.4 source code.
>>
>> It is not very far ahead of the current code.? It is indeed the code
you
>> will get in 6 months.? It is not 'new shiny' .. it is newer
enterprise.
>>
>> What are the benefits:
>>
>> 1)? Many people (like Intel and Facebook) are providing feedback in
real
>> time.? So can any user.? They should have in place, before RHEL 9
>> development starts, the ability to accept public community pull
requests
>> into stream.
>>
>> 2)? This code is still RHEL source code .. it is just not released in
>> rhel yet.? Almost all of it will be released in the upcoming RHEL point
>> release.
>>
>> 3)? Most bugs will get fixed faster, if the code is pulled into stream.
>> ? Many times you don't get the fix until the next point release ..
and
>> this will be what stream is.
> 
> You are putting lipstick on a pig. Let's face it: This is IBM pulling
> the plug on CentOS.
> 
> Not a single one of those "benefits" will benefit *me*. I am a
private
> user hosting his own machines with CentOS for stability but using RHEL
> for work. I do not have the money to pay for RHEL. But I do contribute
> to open-source projects, some of which are part of RHEL.
> 
> I'm pretty sure IBM is behind this: They still do not like the
> open-source model. They only like money.
> 
> After 20 years of running and advocating for Redhat based Distros
> (Fedora on workstations, CentOS on servers) I night have to jump ship
> (if somebody is going to clone "classic" CentOS to keep tracing
RHEL I
> might reconsider). Debian or Ubuntu: here I come. I will also no longer
> advocate for RHEL in the workplace where we used CentOS for
> non-production machines and RHEL for production.
> 
> Thanks for the hard work you put into CentOS over the years. Sorry to
> hear that it now turns out to have been wasted.
> 
I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with
this decision.  Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still
has a CEO, CFO, etc.  Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with
many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.

> I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do
> with
> this decision.  Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat
> still
> has a CEO, CFO, etc.  Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship
> with
> many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.
> 
So why is the hurry ? Why this was not done when the EL8 came alive ?

Best Regards,
Strahil Nikolov

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:02 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
> On 12/8/20 2:01 PM, centos at niob.at wrote:
> > On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >> On 12/8/20 8:35 AM, Bill Gee wrote:
> >>> Aside from the the latest shiny - what are the advantages of
CentOS 8
> >>> Stream?  What are the benefits?
> >>>
> >>> I read through the announcement and FAQ, but they do not
address that
> >>> question.  Is it just a name change?  Is it an attempt to put
CentOS
> >>> on a subscription model?
> >>>
> >> Stream is the RHEL sorce code for rhel + 0.1 .. so durng the 8.3
rhel
> >> cycle, stream will be rhel 8.4 source code.
> >>
> >> It is not very far ahead of the current code.  It is indeed the
code you
> >> will get in 6 months.  It is not 'new shiny' .. it is
newer enterprise.
> >>
> >> What are the benefits:
> >>
> >> 1)  Many people (like Intel and Facebook) are providing feedback
in real
> >> time.  So can any user.  They should have in place, before RHEL 9
> >> development starts, the ability to accept public community pull
requests
> >> into stream.
> >>
> >> 2)  This code is still RHEL source code .. it is just not released
in
> >> rhel yet.  Almost all of it will be released in the upcoming RHEL
point
> >> release.
> >>
> >> 3)  Most bugs will get fixed faster, if the code is pulled into
stream.
> >>   Many times you don't get the fix until the next point
release .. and
> >> this will be what stream is.
> >
> > You are putting lipstick on a pig. Let's face it: This is IBM
pulling
> > the plug on CentOS.
> >
> > Not a single one of those "benefits" will benefit *me*. I am
a private
> > user hosting his own machines with CentOS for stability but using RHEL
> > for work. I do not have the money to pay for RHEL. But I do contribute
> > to open-source projects, some of which are part of RHEL.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure IBM is behind this: They still do not like the
> > open-source model. They only like money.
> >
> > After 20 years of running and advocating for Redhat based Distros
> > (Fedora on workstations, CentOS on servers) I night have to jump ship
> > (if somebody is going to clone "classic" CentOS to keep
tracing RHEL I
> > might reconsider). Debian or Ubuntu: here I come. I will also no
longer
> > advocate for RHEL in the workplace where we used CentOS for
> > non-production machines and RHEL for production.
> >
> > Thanks for the hard work you put into CentOS over the years. Sorry to
> > hear that it now turns out to have been wasted.
> >
>
> I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with
> this decision.  Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still
> has a CEO, CFO, etc.  Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with
> many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.
>

But, was this a RedHat decision? In other words, was the CentOS Board
influenced by RedHat to make this decision in an effort to generate more
revenue by forcing users to switch to a RHEL paid subscription to keep the
status quo?

If so, I assure them, based on all the feedback I've seen so far, this
decision will backfire.


-- 

*Matt Phelps*

*Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator*

(Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory)

Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian


60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138
email: mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu


cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook <http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook> | Twitter
<http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter> | YouTube
<http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube>
| Newsletter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter>

On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with
> this decision.  Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still
> has a CEO, CFO, etc.  Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with
> many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.
Then WHO made the decision?

Where was the transparency in this decision by the CentOS Board? 
(assuming CentOS still *has* a working independent board)

Judging from the reactions, I don't believe that anyone saw this coming. 
Where was the community consultation on IF this was a good idea.

Jim


-- 

Jim Bourne/Dev Null - President Chinook City Roller Derby League
  CCRD  2011  -  2020  BOD  Member,  2016  MRDWC  Hosting  Chair
Co-Captain Glenmore Reservoir Dogs - Flat TrackFever 2012 - 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All you need's  an occasional kick in  the philosophy." Frank
Herbert