CentOS - Dec 2020 - I'm looking forward to the future of CentOS Stream

On 12/10/20 6:28 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS
wrote:
> Allow me to disagree. We both trust Chris Wright's words, don't we?
CTO
> won't lie. Citing him:
>
> "To be exact, CentOS Stream is an upstream development platform for
> ecosystem developers. It will be updated several times a day.
So, like Fedora?? People run servers on Fedora now, and I think that's fine.
> This is not a production operating system."

Does he say that CentOS is a production operating system?

As far as I know, Red Hat has never endorsed running CentOS in 
production, so I don't understand why it's significant that they also 
don't endorse running CentOS Stream in production.

> And even if I reduce the number of CentOS Stream upgrades to
> minimal one, the base advantage of CentOS is lost: predictability.

It's really difficult for me to look at a distribution that just stops 
getting updates for 4-6 weeks, twice a year, and use the word 
"predictable" to describe it.

My first reaction to the announcement was pretty negative, too. But when 
I stepped back and looked at the current situation *real* honestly, I 
had to admit that CentOS just doesn't offer any of the things that 
people are complaining about losing.

And I hope that the CentOS maintainers don't interpret that as 
criticism, because it isn't intended to be.? They've always maintained 
that if you need updates/patches in a timely manner, then you should be 
paying Red Hat for RHEL.? I agreed with them then, and I still do.

On 11.12.2020 15:23, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 12/10/20 6:28 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:
>> Allow me to disagree. We both trust Chris Wright's words, don't
we? CTO
>> won't lie. Citing him:
>>
>> "To be exact, CentOS Stream is an upstream development platform
for
>> ecosystem developers. It will be updated several times a day.
> 
> So, like Fedora?? People run servers on Fedora now, and I think that's 
> fine.
On a production server, where no surprises are expected? That may be. 
People often act very, so to say, strangely.

I am telling about other people. I doubt those actively running Fedora 
on production systems do participate in these threads.
>> This is not a production operating system."
> 
> Does he say that CentOS is a production operating system?
> 
> As far as I know, Red Hat has never endorsed running CentOS in 
> production, so I don't understand why it's significant that they
also
> don't endorse running CentOS Stream in production.
Is RHEL itself suitable for running on production servers?

If not, my argument is weak. If yes, then CentOS, bug-to-bug compatible, 
is suitable, too.

RH won't ever endorse running CentOS (more generally, anything free of 
charge) for obvious reasons, so I don't care about their opinion on this 
subject.
>> And even if I reduce the number of CentOS Stream upgrades to
>> minimal one, the base advantage of CentOS is lost: predictability.
> 
> It's really difficult for me to look at a distribution that just stops 
> getting updates for 4-6 weeks, twice a year, and use the word 
> "predictable" to describe it.
Well, it's not at all difficult for me. Tastes differ.
> My first reaction to the announcement was pretty negative, too. But when 
> I stepped back and looked at the current situation *real* honestly, I 
> had to admit that CentOS just doesn't offer any of the things that 
> people are complaining about losing.
> 
> And I hope that the CentOS maintainers don't interpret that as 
> criticism, because it isn't intended to be.? They've always
maintained
> that if you need updates/patches in a timely manner, then you should be 
> paying Red Hat for RHEL.? I agreed with them then, and I still do.
My primary objection is breach of trust. RH shouldn't have lied at least 
to CentOS community.

Other bug-to-bug compatible RHEL clones will replace the CentOS, so this 
is the part I am less worried about. If someone is happy with CentOS 
Stream, that's fine. I am not, but that's (not only) my problem.

-- 
Sincerely,

Konstantin Boyandin
system administrator (ProWide Labs Ltd. - IPHost Network Monitor)

Am 11.12.20 um 09:23 schrieb Gordon Messmer:
> On 12/10/20 6:28 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:
>> Allow me to disagree. We both trust Chris Wright's words, don't
we? CTO
>> won't lie. Citing him:
>>
>> "To be exact, CentOS Stream is an upstream development platform
for
>> ecosystem developers. It will be updated several times a day.
> 
> So, like Fedora?? People run servers on Fedora now, and I think that's 
> fine.
> 
>> This is not a production operating system."
> 
> 
> Does he say that CentOS is a production operating system?
> 
> As far as I know, Red Hat has never endorsed running CentOS in 
> production, so I don't understand why it's significant that they
also
> don't endorse running CentOS Stream in production.
> 
> 
>> And even if I reduce the number of CentOS Stream upgrades to
>> minimal one, the base advantage of CentOS is lost: predictability.
> 
> 
> It's really difficult for me to look at a distribution that just stops 
> getting updates for 4-6 weeks, twice a year, and use the word 
> "predictable" to describe it.
To be honest, such argumentation is pointless because anyone knowns that
grey shades in beetween exits. CentOS Linux was more on the bright side, 
then Centos Stream will be (in terms of current usage scenarios).

> My first reaction to the announcement was pretty negative, too. But when 
> I stepped back and looked at the current situation *real* honestly, I 
> had to admit that CentOS just doesn't offer any of the things that 
> people are complaining about losing.
> 
> And I hope that the CentOS maintainers don't interpret that as 
> criticism, because it isn't intended to be.? They've always
maintained
> that if you need updates/patches in a timely manner, then you should be 
> paying Red Hat for RHEL.? I agreed with them then, and I still do.
> 
I think a main point(s) at this all is the timing (communication)!

--
Leon

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:23:59AM -0800, Gordon Messmer
wrote:
> >This is not a production operating system."
> Does he say that CentOS is a production operating system?
> 
> As far as I know, Red Hat has never endorsed running CentOS in
> production, so I don't understand why it's significant that they
> also don't endorse running CentOS Stream in production.
Yeah, I too think this is important context. I don't think you'll ever
find
anyone from the business side ever even suggesting that they think CentOS
Linux, the rebuild, was *ever* something Red Hat recommended to run in
production.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader

On 12/11/20 12:23 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 12/10/20 6:28 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS wrote:
>> Allow me to disagree. We both trust Chris Wright's words, don't
we? CTO
>> won't lie. Citing him:
>>
>> "To be exact, CentOS Stream is an upstream development platform
for
>> ecosystem developers. It will be updated several times a day.
>
> So, like Fedora?? People run servers on Fedora now, and I think that's 
> fine.
>
>> This is not a production operating system."
>
>
> Does he say that CentOS is a production operating system?
>
> As far as I know, Red Hat has never endorsed running CentOS in 
> production, so I don't understand why it's significant that they
also
> don't endorse running CentOS Stream in production.
I'm happy you made this point. Yes, CentOS is asssumed to be as 
"stable"? as the release it's based on, but there are changes.

I think it's good to keep this in mind and consider an actual RH license 
if 100% stability and compatibility are the goals.

>
>
>> And even if I reduce the number of CentOS Stream upgrades to
>> minimal one, the base advantage of CentOS is lost: predictability.
>
>
> It's really difficult for me to look at a distribution that just stops 
> getting updates for 4-6 weeks, twice a year, and use the word 
> "predictable" to describe it.
>
> My first reaction to the announcement was pretty negative, too. But 
> when I stepped back and looked at the current situation *real* 
> honestly, I had to admit that CentOS just doesn't offer any of the 
> things that people are complaining about losing.
>
> And I hope that the CentOS maintainers don't interpret that as 
> criticism, because it isn't intended to be.? They've always
maintained
> that if you need updates/patches in a timely manner, then you should 
> be paying Red Hat for RHEL.? I agreed with them then, and I still do.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-- 
"DO or DO NOT; there is no try."
                  -- Yoda

   Kay