CentOS SIG To Help Get Community CentOS Stream Features Into Next RHEL Releases

[JackLilhammers]

144Hz So, in your (not so) humble opinion, if someone criticize something is a hater.
Also they should completely ditch said something because one or two aspetcts that may suck?
Am I a Microsoft lover if I praise particular aspects or features of Windows?
By the same logic, I should use only Windows, right?

[acobar]

144Hz So, in your (not so) humble opinion, if someone criticize something is a hater.
Also they should completely ditch said something because one or two aspetcts that may suck?
Am I a Microsoft lover if I praise particular aspects or features of Windows?
By the same logic, I should use only Windows, right?

Please, don't feed the troll. I have yet to hit a single post of him worth of anything. I just can't remember a single one. On my experience, they are all drivel devoid of any substance.

[skeevy420]

Please, don't feed the troll. I have yet to hit a single post of him worth of anything. I just can't remember a single one. On my experience, they are all drivel devoid of any substance.

He occasionally posts links to the commits and gives a personal thanks to the developers. I appreciate those posts and tack on my thanks via a like.

[matsukan]

Why they bother to do this ? No one is care about CentOS anymore. Just kill it. Nobody care anymore since RockyLinux RC is out now.

[acobar]

He occasionally posts links to the commits and gives a personal thanks to the developers. I appreciate those posts and tack on my thanks via a like.

If what you say is true, then I owe him an apology, and take back my words, but I really don't remember any post of him where the message didn't drive a subliminal attack in disguise.

[MadeUpName]

IBM is trying to recreate the secret sauce that killed AIX and and all the other UNIX/Unix/unix variants. Actual RHEL is more expensive than Windows these days and Redhat will keep pushing up the price. Mean while they will keep driving out the community. That is a recipe for obsolescence.

Before you point your finger and go "Hater!!!" I spent almost my entire career working with and promoting Redhat systems. I was a big supporter of old RedHat as they were the largest contributor to the open source community. While I have in no way shape or form been a fan of IBM in general I did recognize the huge amount of street cred that their initial $1 billion dollar investment in Linux and open source made. That was a big turning point for really large companies to start taking Linux seriously. I pointed to those articles a few times in company meetings my self.

But IBM is a huge dinosaur living off of government contracts and not exactly setting the world on fire. Buying Redhat was a move to try to save them selves not help the open source world. But there is competition out there unlike any thing IBM has ever faced and I just don't think they are up to the task. In the last 10 years who here has been in a corporate meeting with a company that didn't already have IBM and some one went "You know what we need to do? Call IBM". The last company in the world you are going to call is IBM for many, many reasons. We are a long, long ways from the old saying "No one ever lost their job by picking IBM."

[eidolon]

Nobody at Red Hat was stopping community members from stepping up. RH were no longer interested in investing into traditional CentOS and why would they?

If you mean preventing people from continuing CentOS Linux, then yes they did:
"Q14: Can the CentOS community continue to develop/rebuild CentOS Linux?
A: We will not be putting hardware, resources, or asking for volunteers to work towards that effort, nor will we allow the CentOS brand to be used for such a project, as we feel that it dilutes what we are trying to do with the refocus on CentOS Stream."

Where were they when CentOS looked for help (before the buyout)?

Prior to Red Hat and CentOS "joining forces", it doesn't appear the CentOS Project was actively seeking additional contributors to core project development or necessarily even package maintainers (outside of wanting a SPARC maintainer for CentOS 4 and someone to work on deltarpm support), and they may not have wanted or needed more core developers given their project structure and scope (i.e. more cooks in the kitchen might not have necessarily led to more cooks splitting the existing workload in this particular circumstance).
https://web.archive.org/web/20130819...org/Contribute
https://web.archive.org/web/20130809...entos.org/ToDo
https://web.archive.org/web/20131010...s.org/Projects

While I am aware CentOS releases lagged circa CentOS 6.0 and 6.1, when doing a web search for mentions of the CentOS Project seeking or otherwise being interested in additional core contributors (prior to Red Hat effectively taking the reins), I didn't find any relevant results, although perhaps I didn't use the right combination of keywords.

Regardless, CentOS Linux has no long-term future; alternatives exist. No one debates those points. I do not seek to negate the CentOS Stream initiative or cast Red Hat as the great Satan.

---

I am not sure what people are winging about here. CentOS Stream is not for the people who wanted a free RHEL. For that you have Rocky or the actual free version of RHEL.

I think some people are still put out by the impactful reduction of CentOS 8's stated support life 14 months after its release and prior assurances, like "CentOS Stream is parallel to existing CentOS builds; this means that nothing changes for current users of CentOS Linux and services, even those that begin to explore the newly-released CentOS 8", which were reneged on 14 months later. Thankfully, some groups hadn't yet pulled the trigger on upgrading their deployments, but others had completed the transition or were in the process when the announcement hit.

In pointing that out, I certainly don't mean Red Hat isn't free to pivot in pursuit of its business objectives, or that there isn't demand or use for CentOS Stream. I don't think free RHEL, as it currently exists, is a desirable replacement for all CentOS Linux use cases, but, based on what I've seen, affected parties are in the process of evaluating the existing and emergent alternatives that suit them best. I realize rehashing CentOS recent history isn't productive, but I am sympathetic to people who were impacted. People adjusted to the discontinuation of Red Hat Linux (which is mostly a distant memory at this point); people are (albeit in some instances begrudgingly) adjusting to the discontinuation of CentOS Linux.

[You-]

RH take over CentOs, then kill it, not trust in this, maybe CentOs still exists if Rh was never there but since CentOS was big trouble to them I understand RH is only a american corporation, to make money nothing more

Not really. I suspect many of those complaining do not realise how Much Red Hat invested into making and keeping Centos viable.

iirc Red Hat stepped up when the community was dying because they were failing to release Centos 6. From what I remember the community were having trouble getting the builders into a state where the output binaries could match the RHEL binaries. It wasnt as easy to compile back then. Red Hat invested infrastructure and manpower to make it happen and also changed procedure to allow easy rebuilding.

All rebuilders (including the much beloved on this forum Rocky Linux) will be using sources from centos git, which wouldnt exist if Red Hat hadnt stepped up.

[pipe13]

The real problem of Stream is not stability but compatibility. There is a lot of software that is packaged for RHEL 8 and doesn't run on Stream because of binary compatibility breakages. Since the Stream doesn't have any kind of versioning, it's impossible to build packages for it even if somebody wanted to do it. I ran into this exact problem already earlier this year and I ended up compiling stuff from source. Of course now I have no way of knowing whether a next `dnf upgrade` won't break things again. A very 1990s Linux experience.

Ooookay. Could you please elaborate? 'Cuz I'm in the process of acquiring parts for a new workstation and need a primary boot OS. I'm a longtime Fedora user, but I've many many many application libraries I compile from source -- OpenCV, Ossim, Gdal, ITK, VTK, Opticks, their dependencies, plus my own apps, and anymore I cringe at the rebuild of the lot with the yearly Fedora system upgrade. I was hoping CentOS Stream might alleviate that, but was unable to imagine where a rolling release -- any rolling release -- wasn't going to unavoidable break binary compatibility with system libraries at some point.

Are you saying my fears are justified?

Edit: I'm still inclined to go with CentOS Stream for the primary OS on this build. It's a development workstation, and I don't anticipate any "dnf update" surprises beyond what we already see e.g. going from CentOS 8.3 to 8.4, which is to say "none". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/centos-stream-is-continuous-delivery/

[MadCatX]

pipe13 I'm by no means an expert on this so I may only suggest this document (https://access.redhat.com/articles/r...-compatibility). It's a pretty long read but it has some valuable information. My understanding is that if you'll be relying on any "level 3" compatibility packages, you can expect ABI breakages. With point-versioned RHEL and CentOS, you could at least expect them and plan ahead whereas with Stream they may come with any update.