Hi, Here's an interesting read which makes a point for CentOS Stream: https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877 tl;dr: Communication about Stream was BAD, but Stream itself might be a good thing. Here's why. Cheers, Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'?glise - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Blog : https://blog.microlinux.fr Mail : info at microlinux.fr T?l. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12
On 14.12.2020 13:07, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:> Hi, > > Here's an interesting read which makes a point for CentOS Stream: > > https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877 > > tl;dr: Communication about Stream was BAD, but Stream itself might be a good > thing. Here's why. >'might' doesn't mean 'is', there the "terminus techicus" 'dead' is korrekt "CentOS Stream intends to be as stable as RHEL" and where is the 10 year update support? the last update of CentOS Stream will be in the year 2024 and do you really think it is worth the work to migrate to CentOS Stream, when knowing to have this work again in less than 4 years? Walter
Il 2020-12-14 13:07 Nicolas Kovacs ha scritto:> Hi, > > Here's an interesting read which makes a point for CentOS Stream: > > https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877 > > tl;dr: Communication about Stream was BAD, but Stream itself might be a > good > thing. Here's why. > > Cheers, > > NikiWhile interesting, I think the blog post fails to identify the the main issue with Stream: - Stream can be updated many times each days. You basically have a non-stop incoming flow of updates; - as far I know, Stream does not have (and will not have) "synchronization points" with mail RHEL; - the support window is much shorter (ie: 2024 vs 2029). Anyone relying on RHEL/CentOS to be kABI compatible can be severely impacted by the first two points (it's difficult planning updates with rolling releases, when the kernel version can change from a day to another), while the third one (shorter support window) affect anyone. Basically it seems to me that Stream will be to RHEL the same Rawhide is to normal Fedora releases. While this has the potential to be a good move, it should be offered *in addition* to normal CentOS releases - which effectively are a different product. That said I am grateful to all the volunteers that made CentOS possible, and I don't want the above to be taken as a rant - they only are my (possibly wrong) opinions. 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
Nicolas Kovacs> > Here's an interesting read which makes a point for CentOS Stream: > > https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877 > > tl;dr: Communication about Stream was BAD, but Stream itself might be a good > thing. Here's why.As others have said, it misses the _really_ important bit about the traditional CentOS model which is to follow the RHEL ~10 year life cycle It doesn't matter how good/rock solid/whatever CentOS Stream turns out to be, but if it only has a 5 year life cycle for each major release, then it no good to me (and I suspect many others) The article also mentions "CentOS will no longer be old, crusty, and barely alive, trailing RHEL by months at times" - then why didn't Redhat put resources into CentOS to improve that? Redhat must have known, that if they killed off traditional CentOS, then users will simply go elsewhere for a RHEL rebuild ? I agree that Redhat really screwed up this announcement - they would have got a lot more kudos if they had announced CentOS Stream to exist along with keeping the current traditional CentOS ... James Pearson
"Nicolas Kovacs" <info at microlinux.fr> wrote:> https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop-saying-it-is-at-least-until-you-read-this-4b26b5c44877The article states that CentOS will now be "upstream" of RHEL instead of "downstream". This is strange to me. I never thought CentOS was upstream or downstream of RHEL; I always thought it *was* RHEL -- perhaps a little delayed, but that's not the same as being "downstream". It's also clear that Red Hat didn't understand the importance of the 10-year support period. -- Yves Bellefeuille <yan at storm.ca>