CentOS Stream 10 Starting To Get Underway, More Activity In 2024

[ClosedSource]

Totally agree. IBM should drop this distro and reassign it's staff to something else.

That would be stupid. Why would they do so? It provides them with free testing and feedback from any CentOS stream users.

[skeevy420]

Hold up, I am so confused.

I thought Cent OS was Red Hat with the RH branding stripped off but bit for bit binary compatible,

Then i thought Cent OS was EOL, a dead project.

But now this says that Cent OS "Stream" becomes Red Hat?!?

I thought Fedora becomes RH after enough suckers have field tested it to find most of the bugs.

Originally, CentOS was the bit for bit compatible RHEL clone. A few years ago they rebranded it into CentOS Stream so that it now sits between Fedora and RHEL. Alma Linux and Rocky Linux do what CentOS used to do.

Where most organizations have some variation of Debian's Experimental (Rawhide), Unstable (Fedora), Testing (Cent), and Stable (RHEL) repositories for their single distribution, Red Hat does it with three distributions. By doing it this way, Fedora won't ever have to slow down or stabilize for an upcoming RHEL update. All the Fedora>RHEL transition work work can be pushed onto CentOS so everything can just keep on keeping on like nothing is happening. It isn't like Debian where you can get a lull in Testing/Unstable because all the hands on deck are too busy dealing with an upcoming Stable release...followed by Testing/Unstable ramping back up.

IMHO, the biggest problem with CentOS is the C. The Community. Traditionally, originally, The Community was neckbeards using it as Red Hat Free Edition. Nowadays, RHEL has better free options, two clones, and The Community is now developers from companies like BMW and Meta. Those neckbeards can call it dead all they like, but the reality is that CentOS is more active than ever. Calling it Stream and making it the interim between Fedora and RHEL gave it a real purpose in the Red Hat ecosystem.

[Malsabku]

Dead distro don't care

CentOS Stream is not dead, it's alive and it's the newest variant of RHEL that you can get. It's ideal for those who want an stable desktop over multiple years including rolling updates. And in most performance benchmarks on Phoronix, CentOS Stream 9 is the distribution which is on the first place.

[jorgepl]

Originally, CentOS was the bit for bit compatible RHEL clone. A few years ago they rebranded it into CentOS Stream so that it now sits between Fedora and RHEL. Alma Linux and Rocky Linux do what CentOS used to do.

Where most organizations have some variation of Debian's Experimental (Rawhide), Unstable (Fedora), Testing (Cent), and Stable (RHEL) repositories for their single distribution, Red Hat does it with three distributions. By doing it this way, Fedora won't ever have to slow down or stabilize for an upcoming RHEL update. All the Fedora>RHEL transition work work can be pushed onto CentOS so everything can just keep on keeping on like nothing is happening. It isn't like Debian where you can get a lull in Testing/Unstable because all the hands on deck are too busy dealing with an upcoming Stable release...followed by Testing/Unstable ramping back up.

IMHO, the biggest problem with CentOS is the C. The Community. Traditionally, originally, The Community was neckbeards using it as Red Hat Free Edition. Nowadays, RHEL has better free options, two clones, and The Community is now developers from companies like BMW and Meta. Those neckbeards can call it dead all they like, but the reality is that CentOS is more active than ever. Calling it Stream and making it the interim between Fedora and RHEL gave it a real purpose in the Red Hat ecosystem.

I like the comparison you made to the Debian ecosystem.

I wonder if Debian enjoys the same degree of support from other companies CentOS does (I wasn't aware Meta and BMW were contributing to CentOS).

[jorgepl]

CentOS Stream is not dead, it's alive and it's the newest variant of RHEL that you can get. It's ideal for those who want an stable desktop over multiple years including rolling updates. And in most performance benchmarks on Phoronix, CentOS Stream 9 is the distribution which is on the first place.

Actually, I'd say it's preferable to RHEL in some (most) cases. Maybe not on critical machinery, but it's certainly not worse than Debian, Ubuntu or the likes. Almost everything should stay compatible within the lifetime of a CentOS release, and whatever breaks should be because of its hacky nature in the first place. I understand for big, industrial equipment controlled by a PC, risking it is not acceptable, so RHEL is a better option (or an outdated CentOS, which feature-wise is similar, even though security-wise it wouldn'), but for most workstations and even servers, a CentOS install in which the admins control the updates and are dilligent enough should be pretty good as well.

[partcyborg]

Any news about btrfs support? wish they change their mind one day and start supporting it in RHEL.

PS: please don't start the usual trolling about btrfs eating filesystem, ZFS being better and so on. Today is a sunny day and I'd like to stay outside insted of being here reading BS

It's not trolling when it is factual.

I doubt they will ever add btrfs. Things in RHEL have enterprise support. You would have to be out of your mind to offer enterprise support for btrfs filesystems

[RahulSundaram]

Things in RHEL have enterprise support. You would have to be out of your mind to offer enterprise support for btrfs filesystems

Let's not overstate things. SUSE has provided enterprise support including for root usage for many years. Red Hat has just chosen a different path here including Stratis (which as I have noted before has no long term future and has no adoption by other distributions, even Fedora workstation defaults to Btrfs these days) and Bcachefs (which has multiple Red Hat contributors now and I think has a solid future).

[You-]

It's no longer community, and it's no longer enterprise.

Its more community that it had for 5-10 years before the stream initiative.

You have to remember that the community failed to release Centos 6. Red Hat had to step in to "help", but then they were expected to do all the work for both RHEL and again for Centos, and the community could not participate as Centos had to replicate RHEL bug for bug.

Now the community get to take part, find and fix bugs, even lead developments, whether in SIGs, Fedora, ELN, or directly with Red Hat.

Much more community,, arguably much more enterprise too.