Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Hat Continues Pleading The Case For Its CentOS Changes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    I've noticed that the EOL terms for Red Hat's UBI haven't changed, it's still the exact same as the version of RHEL it was based on. Even for the guy with the app that breaks on RHEL/CentOS point releases, why wouldn't you ship your applications in UBIs for whatever version of RHEL/CentOS you feel comfortable/certified in? The EOL for that hasn't changed...unless of course you are really _not_ talking about supporting a single application but rather the entire ecosystem... but that makes no sense either, that is Red Hat's job. Why mix application with infrastructure?

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by omer666 View Post

      Funny enough, using GNOME is a choice on my part. And I'm not a masochist, if it's what you think.
      What is the best desktop environment then? Windows is completely broken and macOS hasn't seen an evolution of its own since 10.4
      Gnome makes be want to chuck my computer out a window...

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by mroche View Post
        Haha, we wish (well, at least us Linux Sysadmins do ). We additionally run with both Windows (software requirements) and macOS, but Linux is the production use-case majority, from both a server and desktop perspective (outside of laptops for which there are only two running CentOS).
        So they're perfectly willing to pay whatever Microsoft asks of them. And they're also willing to pay Apple's equally high prices. But they won't pay for Linux - even though it's the dominant OS in the organization? This makes no sense. Either your IT manager is totally incompetent, and has failed at articulating the requirements for budgeting. Or your manager is vehemently anti-Linux to the point of harming the organization. Either way, sounds like a crap place to work based on that description. Yikes.

        Comment


        • #44
          This was a bad move for a few reasons:

          1) The EOL change was a huge screw job to a lot of people. The shock was partly based on expectations that were never explicitly stated by RH, but no matter what if you just moved to CentOS 8 you are rightfully pissed.
          2) The way it was presented and handled was garbage and, I think, alienated a lot of people. Maybe those people don't matter because they aren't the target for RHEL, but a lot of smaller shops I bet are strongly considering moving off RHEL because it doesn't seem like you can trust them anymore. Also, if you are a small shop running RHEL that also kept a CentOS box running for testing etc., maybe you use this moment to evaluate if you want to switch to something like Ubuntu LTS or Suse.

          Finally, I'm not too keen on calling everyone mad at this move freeloaders. RH certainly contributes a good deal to open source, but they also certainly benefit from using open source and the larger community in general. I think that there was some fair give and take in that dynamic already, to say nothing of the fact that using CentOS as an on-ramp to RHEL was a valuable proposition. Stream might be able to fill that need for RH, but how many people are going to use it now that they've pissed so many people off?

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
            So they're perfectly willing to pay whatever Microsoft asks of them. And they're also willing to pay Apple's equally high prices. But they won't pay for Linux - even though it's the dominant OS in the organization? This makes no sense. Either your IT manager is totally incompetent, and has failed at articulating the requirements for budgeting. Or your manager is vehemently anti-Linux to the point of harming the organization. Either way, sounds like a crap place to work based on that description. Yikes.
            OR (alternate option), the people on this forum can stop assuming they know everything about a business they are not a part of

            The former parent company literally would not spend money on things they absolutely were not required to. You are required to pay for Windows. You are required to pay for Mac hardware and other equipment. You are not required to pay for every Linux distribution, clone or not. Therefore, money not being spent. It's a very simple formula. We have bigger problems when it comes to staffing and people allocations than our software stack.

            The former parent company may have been crappy, but the people I work with are great. We're still navigating with the new one who we will be officially 100% under on Jan 1, and they've been pretty accommodating so far.

            Cheers,
            Mike
            mroche
            Senior Member
            Last edited by mroche; 19 December 2020, 06:13 PM.

            Comment


            • #46
              Red Hat: Wah... wah.wa..wah. Wah.

              Community: You just want us to test your software for free.

              Red Hat: Wah, wah. wa.wah.wah.wa.wah,wah.

              Community: You already had Stream, it was there already, you just want to kill old school CentOS in a (presumably failing) attempt to coerce additional revenue.

              Red Hat: Wah, wa, wah, wah, wah, wa, wah wah. Wah, wa, wa.... wah wa wa wah, wah, wah.

              Community: Goodbye. We liked you better when you were pro-FOSS.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                False. It is still Red Hat, Inc. Red Hat is still its own legally incorporated entity. The difference is that now IBM owns this entity, rather than Red Hat shareholders. Google "wholly owned subsidiary" for more information.
                The amount of gaslighting on this forum claiming RedHat's "legal independence" despite the truth that it is now just a tiny piece of the IBM borg is hilarious. You should look up the term "wholly owned subsidiary"[1] and see if you can grok the definition. IBM does not devour "all outstanding shares" of a corporation and then decline legal ownership.

                [1] https://www.wraltechwire.com/2019/01...rger-complete/

                Comment


                • #48
                  I'd pay 100 bucks to a stranger from the future who can tell me what happens to Red Hat in 10 years from now.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Deetwenty View Post
                    Haven't read all comments but to my mind the biggest issue is that Red-hat decided to significantly cut the live of CentOS 8 short, which means there is only a short amount of time to figure out if CentOS streams fits your needs and if not what the alternatives are. Combined this with the rather ham fisted way they are doubling down on this and this is rapidly turning into something of a PR disaster. If they had jus announced that CentOS 8 would be last CentOS release (with normal duration of support) and that after that everybody has to move to Streams, RHEL proper, or something else it would be a much smaller issue (still an issue of course but a lot easier to handle).

                    All in all before all this was considering CentOS as a base for my home-lab/-server (that is in the planning phase) but now will probably go with openSUSE leap or Ubuntu server
                    This.
                    Most of people here are missing the point. They said CentOS8 was going to be supported for years, now it's only one. They lied. No wonder why people are angry.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by computerquip View Post

                      No. You're confusing free speech and free beer. People got into open-source because of free speech. You're advocating for free beer which is not what things like GPL or Linux was originally about. GPL, in various ways, encourages the sale of GPL'd software. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't mean people don't need to put food on the table.
                      Yes. This. Also GPL license is much more easy to understand than /n/ weird proprietary licenses. Not to forget windows 98 was tote shit and windows NT was shit in different milking way.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X