Red Hat Continues Pleading The Case For Its CentOS Changes

[Snaipersky]

Red Hat has an established history of being untrustworthy. From the expanding scope of systemd, reimplementing things without understanding what is being replaced, rejecting the concept of bugs (I know LP isn't all of red hat, but such behavior needs to be reined in at any company). The flip-flopping on BTRFS support, replacing it with their current stratis "solution" which has felt very hacked together (been rejected out of hand at work due to being unable to correctly account for space usage), and now abridging CentOS' EOL.
On one hand, the new crop of replacements is reassuring, on the other, they're still tracking a shaky source. I don't think SuSE could've mounted a better advertising campaign. Between willing to to block on steam, offering security toggles at install time, and listening to feedback on how microos should be built, they definitely keep their ear to the ground when it comes to the community.

[duby229]

yes. It has been confirmed by several reliable sources that this has been a RH move not imposed by IBM. And this make it even more unexplainable.

How is it unexplainable? CentOS has been mooching Redhat! That -is- the explaination!

[cynic]

How is it unexplainable? CentOS has been mooching Redhat! That -is- the explaination!

RH has always been a very open company and it has always collaborated with the community, giving back A LOT of work.
This CentOS thing is seen as a big change of direction from them, and, understandably, a kind of betrayal.
This was totally unexpected.

[S.Pam]

IMHO the bigger issue is the trust that was broken with changing EOL date with very short notice.

From Redhat's point of view I'm sure they want to use Stream to bug test and feature test stuff before general availability in RHEL.

[computerquip]

RH has always been a very open company and it has always collaborated with the community, giving back A LOT of work.
This CentOS thing is seen as a big change of direction from them, and, understandably, a kind of betrayal.
This was totally unexpected.

I think communication was the bigger failure here if anything. I'm not actually against the move but cutting an LTS short was probably not the way to go.
That said, if you as a company relied on CentOS 8, you probably don't have much of an excuse to not have an active RHEL subscription and should just be using RHEL 8 anyways.

[Vistaus]

EDIT: If Redhat died, what exactly do you think would happen to CentOS, Oracle, SuSe, etc.... None of them can be what Redhat is, none of them care about Open Source like Redhat does...

144Hz, is that you?!

[cb88]

yes. It has been confirmed by several reliable sources that this has been a RH move not imposed by IBM. And this make it even more unexplainable.

Its not that hard to explain, CentOS was always acceptable as it was old and stable... most of the new development coming out of Red Hat has been cancer for a long long time, want to see some controversy making headway despite everyone hating that on Linux... look to Redhat. Overly complicated monilthic software, they are in many ways just as bad as Oracle, because they bait you in with some nice open source stuff and the foist thier monolithic anti KISS corpocrap on you.

[marccollin]

not happy buy a red hat licence otherwise take the source and rebuild everything......

[duby229]

Ok, so some of my posts are getting really upset. I've deleted two of them already, sorry if anybody saw the ones I deleted....

EDIT: You can definitely believe that Redhat cares a lot more about Open Source than almost any other company does. All you guys that are pissed about it can move on to Oracle...

[ssokolow]

*shrug* I've always preferred Debian Stable for my VPSes, even without them being more ideologically aligned toward not shaming penniless hobbyists like me for wanting a stable server OS.