Red Hat Now Limiting RHEL Sources To CentOS Stream

[jaypatelani]

And get nothing. Thanks, but no.

Tell me when kernel is GPLv3

[Leinad]

It's crazy how openSUSE Leap and Tumbleweed seem to profit from RedHats "handling" of CentOS and it's successors.

According to openSUSE's metrics https://metrics.opensuse.org/d/osrt_...1&viewPanel=10 Leap increased it's user base from 200k to 600k since February 2021 and Tumbleweed from 65k to 180k.

I would assume that this growth will continue in the next months.

I read somewhere, that most of the Leap traffic is done by one IP, probably used for some often spawned containers.

[evasb]

Nothingburger. CentOS Stream is not rolling release or "bleeding edge". Just dropping minor releases does not make a distro rolling release.

The packages are the same, the re-builders will just organize the minor releases using the same sources.

The accusation that CentOS Stream is "bleeding edge" is so ridiculous that is like saying that Debian is bleeding edge because if I do a "apt upgrade" I would upgrade for the latest point release. The difference is that when a package update is ready, it will be already available in the repos, don't caring about a 9.1 or 9.2 release, all upgrades are part of the same CentOS Stream 9 release.

[evasb]

Does this means that centos stream's git repo's will, or currently have packages that are within RHEL's 10 year support, including security and maintenance patches that RHEL boasts about?

RHEL support is 5~6 years, the rest is part of the extended support. CentOS Stream has the same 5~6 years of life-cycle if I'm not mistaken.

[Developer12]

I advice people to use the AGPLv3 license ;-) it makes people angry who dislike the idea of opensource and free software.

and this is very good thing.

The AGPL is an anti-free-software licence. Any software covered by it is, by definition, not free software. Neither is it open source.

Go use the GPLv3, GPLv2, MPL 2.0, MIT, or BSD licences instead.

Edit: Side note, just because the FSF considers a licence "free" doesn't make it so. Go look into why Debian considers the GCC documentation non-free and places it in their non-free repo.

[kurkosdr]

the anwer no is only in "theory" because in practice free loading is possible.

It depends how do you define "freeloading". Did RedHat freeload when they got an entire OS for free to build their RHEL product? As I've said before, without all the GPL code they got for free RedHat would've been two drinking buddies in a bar dreaming of someday releasing their own OS.

[kgonzales]

It depends how do you define "freeloading". Did RedHat freeload when they got an entire OS for free to build their RHEL product? As I've said before, without all the GPL code they got for free RedHat would've been two drinking buddies in a bar dreaming of someday releasing their own OS.

Red Hat’s contribution back to all those projects has been extremely high.

Your contribution has been… ?

[kgonzales]

believe me you are not something special here in the phoronix.com forum there are many people who outgun in everything you think to know and outgun you in every skill you have.

arrogance is not something you can get points here...

Yes but at least they contribute to open source and help the community.

What do you do besides download free binaries? Nothing?

[kgonzales]

Somebody else will probably simply mirror the sources. A license is not that expensive. So if someone pays and thus gets access, then he can simply mirror the sources somewhere else.

Maybe the RHEL clones out there should get together and do that in a centralized manner.

They should definitely clone RHEL instead of innovate and create something better... in fact, all this effort to clone RHEL and people salivating over RHEL must mean that RHEL is the best option out there, right? I mean, they don't want the code, they want the cloned binaries. No one cares about the code and making it better.

[kgonzales]

Behaving like they are special and important when they aren't.
believing in the brand over quality and what their users want
moving to close out open ecosystems to increase brand loyalty

All while their server sales collapse by 90% over a ten year period.

what other mistakes did Sun make that IBM hasnt yet?

You literally know nothing about what corporate users want, unless you are talking to the CTOs and CIOs of global megacorps and participating in their buying process.

Or are you projecting about what YOU want as "their users"?