Red Hat Now Limiting RHEL Sources To CentOS Stream

[qarium]

Yes but at least they contribute to open source and help the community.
What do you do besides download free binaries? Nothing?

i do not use any of these binaries... i do not use RHEL and i do not use centos stream

i also do not use alma and also do not use rocky... or whatever.

so what exactly is my crime that you blame me ?

[qarium]

Because of Office and Exchange. There were literally no competitors to these tools that were worth a damn for decades.

I did not use any of these microsoft products for like over 20 years and even then i was forced in the school to use microsoft office.
and yes you can drive a company without microsoft office.

well we know you claim otherwise.

In the cloud, Microsoft shoved massive buckets of free Azure credits into every major customer's enterprise contract. Made it almost impossible not to at least try to use Azure for some applications.

sounds logic to me make them addicted by give away free stuff on the short time period to then make profit on the long time because they did become so addicted that they now can not switch to another solution.

microsoft makes billions on this mechanism for over 40 years.

Yeah you are not nearly as clever as you think you are. But keep trying! You might get there.

dude i know for sure that i am really clever. and i do not need your approval for this.

Well obviously pirated Windows was the only reason they were so successful. Literally the only reason. Nice job! Man, Gartner should hire you because you have this nailed down! The fact that Windows was installed on nearly every consumer PC for decades couldn't have had anything to do with it. None at all.

microsoft had their reasons to allow Piracy. Dominating the OEM market is another of their dirty tricks.

"Nice job! Man, Gartner should hire you because you have this nailed down!"

sarcasm will not help you at all.

Which means that Linux sucks so much that the only way to get marketshare is to give is away for free. Given how many people here are desperate for free binaries, you might be right... at least for many of the users of this board.

right for many people linux sucks for the fact alone that it is not a free version of windows.

"Given how many people here are desperate for free binaries, you might be right... at least for many of the users of this board."

the time that you can make a point if it is free is long over and i can explain you why.

the OEM version of windows what they install on computers like windows 10 home or windows 10 pro or windows 11 home does the manufacturer cost something like 4€ (thats not a joke) but then they installed pre-loaded paid apps like amazon or netflix and so on on the device and this gifes them the last numbers i know was 28€ means 28-4= 24€ profit...

the linux versions instead are mostly clean and have no paid apps on it this means if a manufacturer charge the exact same price for the same hardware the linux version ends up become more expensive for the fact alone that the fully bloaded loaded with paid apps windows 10 home version makes 24€ in profit (or even more) and even if linux costs 0€ linux will be more expensive.

thats why your idea that linux will get marketshare if it is free means 0€ is wrong.

the only product ever succeeded agaist this was the valve steam deck because valve makes money with the shop means they can and they do subsidize the hardware:

this means without a company like valve who owns a successfull appstore who are willingly subsidize the hardware linux in the desktop market is death.

its the same reason why playstation 5 and Xbox is successfull because they subsidize the hardware...

a linux what costs 0€ can not compete with a fully bloaded windows OEM OS fully loaded with paid apps and other evil stuff.

I spent almost 15 years having to eat shit from Linux freetards who knew less than nothing about the code, the licensing or how the community worked. Now that I do not have to do that, I'm having my due.

you are free to do whatever you want.

[Luke]

As a hardcore Linux user I do not even SEE the Windows desktop on a new laptop, as I avoid models that cannot get to the UEFI menu without having ever booted Windows. I do not activate Windows ever, once got into a "win win" with the computer store as one of the very few buyers for whom a then-new netbook with non-booting Windows did not generate a return. The paid bloatware is never seen or run, wiped off the disk before first boot from anything other than a Linux USB stick. I win, bloatware vendors lose

[mSparks]

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"?

They want compatibility, easy of use and flexibility.
They do not want a nice shiney brand and vendor lock in.

By choosing the later IBM is sealing its fate the same way countless others have before them. They wont lose everyone instantly, some people, like you for example, will be stupid enough to stick with them until the bitter end, but this move effectively makes any new installations a liability, any sensible CTO already started new migration plans, many already did when they lost everyones trust with the CentOS debacle.

Oracle UEK is going to be a huge winner here.

[mroche]

Quackdoc

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.

Small clarification on this. RHEL has a 10 year lifecycle, split into two primary phases: Full Support and Maintenance Support. The FS cycle is the first 5-5.5 years, from x.0 to x.10. Once x.10 is released, the platform shifts into MS for the remainder of the 10 years. There's additional lifecycle properties regarding Extended Update Support and Extended Lifecycle Support, but they aren't relevant here.

CentOS Stream, on the other hand, has a shorter lifecycle tied to the Full Support phase of RHEL. CentOS Stream will become publicly available within a year before the release of the next major RHEL version and will see development and community efforts until the release of x.10. After that, development will stop and focus will be shifted to the next and presently overlapping Stream versions. So CentOS Stream can have up to a 6.5 year lifecycle, though most would probably not use the pre-x.0 base until very close to release.

Currently, the engineering teams are getting ready with CentOS Stream 10 within the build system, looking at an availability sometime mid-next year I believe. CentOS Stream 8 will cease development next year, leaving CentOS Stream 9 as the sole "supported" community platform from the project until CentOS Stream 10 launches.

Cheers,
Mike

[qarium]

As a hardcore Linux user I do not even SEE the Windows desktop on a new laptop, as I avoid models that cannot get to the UEFI menu without having ever booted Windows. I do not activate Windows ever, once got into a "win win" with the computer store as one of the very few buyers for whom a then-new netbook with non-booting Windows did not generate a return. The paid bloatware is never seen or run, wiped off the disk before first boot from anything other than a Linux USB stick. I win, bloatware vendors lose

right these manufacturers make a lot of money with installing paid apps bloatware on the OEM windows.

if you wipe the disk clearn and install linux... these vloatware vendors of course lose.

[kurkosdr]

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

Your contribution has been… ?

Zero, but this doesn't change the fact RedHat benefited from lots of GPL code that already existed by "freeloading" on that code. So, the real question is, who "freeloaded" from whom? Are all those people who wrote the code RedHat found "freeloading" on RedHat's contributions or vice versa? Allowing anyone to jump in the development effort by giving them the same access to the source code is fundamental to the development model that RedHat greatly benefits from as a company. To put it in simple terms, there is a non-zero chance I may contribute something in the future (even in the form of translations and docs) and RedHat will benefit from it. Oh, and you don't have to participate. For example, Microsoft developed their own OS (including their own kernel) from scratch.

[qarium]

Zero, but this doesn't change the fact RedHat benefited from lots of GPL code that already existed by "freeloading" on that code. So, the real question is, who "freeloaded" from whom? Are all those people who wrote the code RedHat found "freeloading" on RedHat's contributions or vice versa? Allowing anyone to jump in the development effort by giving them the same access to the source code is fundamental to the development model that RedHat greatly benefits from as a company. To put it in simple terms, there is a non-zero chance I may contribute something in the future (even in the form of translations and docs) and RedHat will benefit from it. Oh, and you don't have to participate. For example, Microsoft developed their own OS (including their own kernel) from scratch.

he clearly does not unterstand the linux/opensource ecosystem... and he also does not unterstand the microsoft windows ecosystem because the free copies of windows and office what microsoft gives to university students is in fact "freeloaded" and that microsoft purposely allow Pirated windows copies is also "freeloaded"

so he clearly does not understand the software industry

[grahamperrin]

… When a company lies through their teeth … https://www.redhat.com/en/about/pres...d-cloud-future …

Yep, twenty-one mentions of open source in that 2019 press release.

Fast-forward less than four years:

… Red Hat Enterprise Linux development is … open …

– and no mention of open source.

Ahem.

[rosco]

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.

Would you run a server on Centos Stream?