CentOS Linux 8 2105 Released As RHEL 8.4 Equivalent

[leech]

The answer is probably 'because IBM'. Big companies often make stupid decisions, as the decision making happens in ivory towers far removed from those who actually use the products.

Why did Compaq and HP spend $Billions to kill their profitable and high performing Alpha and PA-RISC products in favor of Itanium? Tru64, OpenVMS, and HP-UX are basically irrelevant at this point, as everyone jumped ship when the Itanic sunk. I worked for both Compaq and HP in the late 90's and they had a solid lock on the markets that bought Tru64, OpenVMS, and HP-UX systems. Competition was scarce, the relevant industries had made a defacto standard of them, and sales were brisk. Profit margins were very nice too, way higher than the commodity wintel tinkertoys of the day. But along comes new CEO's eager to "make their mark" with "bold new strategies". The rest is history.

Have to say I am always saddened when a CPU architecture is killed off. Like the Motorola 68k line, or PPC (even though it's morphed into the POWER architecture, it's too expensive for mere mortals to 'play' with), etc.

[torsionbar28]

I used to work for Studebaker.

We used to make incredible horse carriages and even though ownership changed we had a solid reputation and market for early automobiles. But then everyone jumped ship and moved to GM when they went full market segmentation. So we merged with Packard and we thought we had a solid lock on the markets for high value driving as well as luxury autos. Profit margins were pretty good and so was the pay, better than what Nash-Rambler was paying with the little cars they were pushing including some little brand called Willy's. But some CEO came in and thought he could make us more than what we were and "make his mark" with his "bold strategies". The rest they say is history.;

Itanium is the successful platform of the future? Tru64 and HP-UX are gaining marketshare? The joke doesn't quite work...

[pipe13]

Think about this:

It makes no--as in ZERO--sense for CentOS to be 'muddying the waters' like this.

Now ask yourself the question, "WHY are they doing this?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Reader: consider yourself to be a member of Congress. Now, consider yourself to be a bllthering idiot. But I repeat myself."--Mark Twain

That might depend upon to whom it makes ZERO sense. Look at it this way:

2020: Fedora and its bug cycle --> RHEL and its bug cycle --> CentOS and its bug cycle
.................................................. ............<---- (one very slow feedback loop) -------<


2022: Fedora and its bug cycle --> CentOS Stream and its bug cycle --> RHEL and its bug cycle
.................................................. .........<- (another slow feedback loop completely outside of mine) -<


Now as a FreeOS parasite who incidentally does occasionally file bugzillas against Fedora and CentOS and who personally will never see the light of RHEL, which paracycle does one suppose I would rather ride? (We're currently midway through 2021. Assume for the sake of argument that CentOS Stream's ABI compatibility "promise" actually does play out as mroche's video suggests.)

[edwaleni]

The answer is probably 'because IBM'. Big companies often make stupid decisions, as the decision making happens in ivory towers far removed from those who actually use the products.

Why did Compaq and HP spend $Billions to kill their profitable and high performing Alpha and PA-RISC products in favor of Itanium? Tru64, OpenVMS, and HP-UX are basically irrelevant at this point, as everyone jumped ship when the Itanic sunk. I worked for both Compaq and HP in the late 90's and they had a solid lock on the markets that bought Tru64, OpenVMS, and HP-UX systems. Competition was scarce, the relevant industries had made a defacto standard of them, and sales were brisk. Profit margins were very nice too, way higher than the commodity wintel tinkertoys of the day. But along comes new CEO's eager to "make their mark" with "bold new strategies". The rest is history.

I used to work for Studebaker.

We used to make incredible horse carriages and even though ownership changed we had a solid reputation and market for early automobiles. But then everyone jumped ship and moved to GM when they went full market segmentation. So we merged with Packard and we thought we had a solid lock on the markets for high value driving as well as luxury autos. Profit margins were pretty good and so was the pay, better than what Nash-Rambler was paying with the little cars they were pushing including some little brand called Willy's. But some CEO came in and thought he could make us more than what we were and "make his mark" with his "bold strategies". The rest they say is history.

[mroche]

MadeUpName yeah that's the idea but from some comments on HN and reddit people said they had binary update breakages but that might change in future.

And torsionbar28 :

Cheers,
Mike

[calc]

Isn't the idea of Stream that it has no EOL it just slowly transmorgifies into the next release?

For the next minor point release, but not the next major release.

There is a separate CentOS Stream for 8 and 9.

[torsionbar28]

MadeUpName yeah that's the idea but from some comments on HN and reddit people said they had binary update breakages but that might change in future.

And therein lies the problem with CentOS Stream. When looking for an enterprise grade LTS release, "might change/break in future" is a no-go. Stream is not a replacement for CentOS.

[jaypatelani]

MadeUpName yeah that's the idea but from some comments on HN and reddit people said they had binary update breakages but that might change in future.

[MadeUpName]

I think if CentOS stream works well with binaries throughout EOL it will be successful

Isn't the idea of Stream that it has no EOL it just slowly transmorgifies into the next release?

[torsionbar28]

Now ask yourself the question, [I]"WHY are they doing this?"

The answer is probably 'because IBM'. Big companies often make stupid decisions, as the decision making happens in ivory towers far removed from those who actually use the products.

Why did Compaq and HP spend $Billions to kill their profitable and high performing Alpha and PA-RISC products in favor of Itanium? Tru64, OpenVMS, and HP-UX are basically irrelevant at this point, as everyone jumped ship when the Itanic sunk. I worked for both Compaq and HP in the late 90's and they had a solid lock on the markets that bought Tru64, OpenVMS, and HP-UX systems. Competition was scarce, the relevant industries had made a defacto standard of them, and sales were brisk. Profit margins were very nice too, way higher than the commodity wintel tinkertoys of the day. But along comes new CEO's eager to "make their mark" with "bold new strategies". The rest is history.