subject:"\[CentOS\] Centos versions in the future\?"

Understood.
like all previous trends in technology, that too will change, the
landscape is always changing..
I'm an idealist, there is no way in hell I would ever accept anything
from Amazon or Microsoft, never...would rather fail than surrender
principles

On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 15:37 -0500, Jon Pruente wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:32 PM mario juliano grande-balletta <
> mario.balle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The motivations behind Rocky Linux are noble indeed, altruistic
> andback to community.But, accepting support from Amazon, Google, and
> especially Microsofttastes like vomit in my mouth.  Nothing in the
> world I despise anddisrespect more than anything related to
> Microsoft.Get better sponsors, get community funding!
> 
> They are the 3 largest cloud services there are. That's what the
> support isfor. They are working with the platforms that will be
> running their OS onpotentially millions of instances. Welcome to the
> 21st century of
> computing.___CentOS
> mailing listcen...@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Jon Pruente

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:32 PM mario juliano grande-balletta <
mario.balle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The motivations behind Rocky Linux are noble indeed, altruistic and
> back to community.
> But, accepting support from Amazon, Google, and especially Microsoft
> tastes like vomit in my mouth.  Nothing in the world I despise and
> disrespect more than anything related to Microsoft.
> Get better sponsors, get community funding!
>

They are the 3 largest cloud services there are. That's what the support is
for. They are working with the platforms that will be running their OS on
potentially millions of instances. Welcome to the 21st century of computing.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

The motivations behind Rocky Linux are noble indeed, altruistic and
back to community.
But, accepting support from Amazon, Google, and especially Microsoft
tastes like vomit in my mouth.  Nothing in the world I despise and
disrespect more than anything related to Microsoft.  
Get better sponsors, get community funding!

On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 23:06 +0300, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 8:53 μ.μ., Gionatan Danti wrote:
> That said, lets face in: current CentOS is not really a community, at
> least in the sense that a community can steer the project direction.
> Nobody polled for Stream or asked about it. Stream simply happened
> due to an unilateral Red Hat decision. *Which is PERFECTLY fine*,
> unless trying to masking it behind the "community" word.
> My view is that RH/CentOS would be relatively inadequate for many
> roles without the outstanding work done by EPEL and the rest of the
> CentOS community, unless you are an hyperscaler who can do its own
> internal package additions. Red Hat failing to recognize the enormous
> value of EPEL and former CentOS model really baffles me. 
> Exactly so.
> So, this enormous and invaluable effort should not be wasted and
> abandoned, but should continue and thrive within full community-
> driven projects like Rocky Linux.
> This is what I mean by community effort. CentOS is no more a
> community-driven project, but others emerge. Yet, currently the only
> one with true community characteristics is probably Rocky Linux.
> Cheers,Nick
> ___CentOS mailing
> listCentOS@centos.orghttps://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 8/7/2021 8:53 μ.μ., Gionatan Danti wrote:

That said, lets face in: current CentOS is not really a community, at 
least in the sense that a community can steer the project direction. 
Nobody polled for Stream or asked about it. Stream simply happened due 
to an unilateral Red Hat decision. *Which is PERFECTLY fine*, unless 
trying to masking it behind the "community" word.


My view is that RH/CentOS would be relatively inadequate for many 
roles without the outstanding work done by EPEL and the rest of the 
CentOS community, unless you are an hyperscaler who can do its own 
internal package additions. Red Hat failing to recognize the enormous 
value of EPEL and former CentOS model really baffles me. 


Exactly so.

So, this enormous and invaluable effort should not be wasted and 
abandoned, but should continue and thrive within full community-driven 
projects like Rocky Linux.


This is what I mean by community effort. CentOS is no more a 
community-driven project, but others emerge. Yet, currently the only one 
with true community characteristics is probably Rocky Linux.


Cheers,
Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Gionatan Danti


Il 2021-07-08 16:46 Leon Fauster via CentOS ha scritto:

Maybe "we" could fill this gap? Describe this state of EPEL? Did you
requested such missing packages? From the early on (EL8.0) I requested
such EPEL packages, some fedora maintainers branched there packages 
into

EPEL8. Even a request for a devel package was honored and the rpm was
included by RH later in 8.1. This is a community, so communicate!
Everything else is a product in ready state that must be paid.


For what it is worth, I opened various RH bugzilla enhancement request 
in the 10+ years of using CentOS. One of the last: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902781


That said, lets face in: current CentOS is not really a community, at 
least in the sense that a community can steer the project direction. 
Nobody polled for Stream or asked about it. Stream simply happened due 
to an unilateral Red Hat decision. *Which is PERFECTLY fine*, unless 
trying to masking it behind the "community" word.


My view is that RH/CentOS would be relatively inadequate for many roles 
without the outstanding work done by EPEL and the rest of the CentOS 
community, unless you are an hyperscaler who can do its own internal 
package additions. Red Hat failing to recognize the enormous value of 
EPEL and former CentOS model really baffles me.


Regards.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Rainer Duffner



> Am 08.07.2021 um 17:38 schrieb Nikolaos Milas :
> 
> On 8/7/2021 6:19 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> Of course, tastes differ, but still, only those who tasted both things can 
>> have fairly say what is better to one's own taste.
>> ...
>> But even as part of our infrastructure fled to FreeBSD...
>> ...
> 
> As a side note:
> 
> l never used FreeBSD, even though I've heard good things about it. Frankly, I 
> loathe its devil logo. I know it's probably derived from the Unix "daemons", 
> yet I fail to get reconciled with it. It's simply appalling to me (even if 
> it's smiling) :(
> 
> I don't require any reply on my above comment (I might even be called naive 
> or whatever). It's some kind of personal confession which I feel I need to 
> express somehow. I simply wish FreeBSD people changed this logo at some 
> point...
> 
> I wonder whether FreeBSD users are expressing similar concerns... I am not 
> following any FreeBSD activity or discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick



There was a contest to change the logo a while (10-12-ish years) ago, and the 
official logo is now that:

https://freebsdfoundation.org/about-us/about-the-foundation/project/

However, that logo wasn’t universally liked by some core-members and it looks 
like the „Daemon“ is thus still in use.

The „Daemon“ is IMO somehow more approachable and „cute“ if you want to say 
that.



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Zube

On Thu Jul 08 12:32:53 PM, mark wrote:

> I'm reminded of a column in SysAdmin, a long time ago. Seems the woman who
> wrote? contributed? to the column Daemons and Dragons was wearing a t-shirt
> with the logo, and she was traveling with some folks in the US South. She
> went in to pick up some bbq... and by the time she had the food and was
> walking out, was afraid that she might be attacked by one or more of the
> "Real Christians" in the shop, from the comments they made, because of the
> shirt.

First thing I thought of too.

https://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/new89/satan.773.html

Cheers,
Zube
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread mark


On 7/8/21 11:38 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:

On 8/7/2021 6:19 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:


...
Of course, tastes differ, but still, only those who tasted both things 
can have fairly say what is better to one's own taste.

...
But even as part of our infrastructure fled to FreeBSD...
...


As a side note:

l never used FreeBSD, even though I've heard good things about it. 
Frankly, I loathe its devil logo. I know it's probably derived from the 
Unix "daemons", yet I fail to get reconciled with it. It's simply 
appalling to me (even if it's smiling) :(


I don't require any reply on my above comment (I might even be called 
naive or whatever). It's some kind of personal confession which I feel I 
need to express somehow. I simply wish FreeBSD people changed this logo 
at some point...


I wonder whether FreeBSD users are expressing similar concerns... I am 
not following any FreeBSD activity or discussion.



*chuckle*

I'm reminded of a column in SysAdmin, a long time ago. Seems the woman 
who wrote? contributed? to the column Daemons and Dragons was wearing a 
t-shirt with the logo, and she was traveling with some folks in the US 
South. She went in to pick up some bbq... and by the time she had the 
food and was walking out, was afraid that she might be attacked by one 
or more of the "Real Christians" in the shop, from the comments they 
made, because of the shirt.


mark
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 8/7/2021 5:46 μ.μ., Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:


Μaybe "we" could fill this gap? Describe this state of EPEL? Did you
requested such missing packages? From the early on (EL8.0) I requested
such EPEL packages, some fedora maintainers branched there packages into
EPEL8. Even a request for a devel package was honored and the rpm was
included by RH later in 8.1. This is a community, so communicate! 
Everything else is a product in ready state that must be paid.


+1

In a lot of circumstances we do not invest a bit of time to participate 
in such community joint efforts and this has a significant cost for all 
of us in the long run.


Let's all be more active in our communities if we want them to remain 
strong, as Leon suggests.


Cheers,
Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 8/7/2021 6:53 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:

THAT must have been part of the reason for mscot. Also, they call 
mascot Beasty (as in diminutive from :"beast"). And if you pronounce 
the abbreviation of Berkeley Software Distribution (the one FreeBSD is 
successor of): BSD, and then "beasty" they sound not that different 
from one another ;-)


That makes things even worse... :( x 2

Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

Personally, I have always been a fan of the BSD distributions and have
always kept at least 1 virtual machine running a flavor of
BSD.  However, I am not religious, and have no attachment to anything
supernatural or metaphysical or any other pseudo-spiritual thing.
I just think with the changes happening at RedHat, we will see some
effects soon, including Fedora as well.  It is a shame, CentOS has been
a rock solid workhorse, perfect for testing, for proofing, for
prototyping and all sorts of infrastructural experimentation.
Once packages begin disappearing and the distribution begins shrinking,
it won't be long before IBM decides that CentOS needs to have a
stripped-down community edition, with very few features, and a
commercial edition, for a marginal cost, and the excuse will be that
CentOS Community & Project need to earn revenue for maintenance costs.
That is my prediction.
Sad!

On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 10:47 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> On 7/8/21 10:38 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 6:19 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> ...Of course, tastes differ, but still, only those who tasted both
> things can have fairly say what is better to one's own tasteBut
> even as part of our infrastructure fled to FreeBSD..
> As a side note:
> l never used FreeBSD, even though I've heard good things about it.
> Frankly, I loathe its devil logo. I know it's probably derived from
> the Unix "daemons", yet I fail to get reconciled with it. It's simply
> appalling to me (even if it's smiling) :(
> 
> I _can_ understand religious person's attitude to some images.
> I don't require any reply on my above comment (I might even be called
> naive or whatever). It's some kind of personal confession which I
> feel I need to express somehow. I simply wish FreeBSD people changed
> this logo at some point...
> I wonder whether FreeBSD users are expressing similar concerns... I
> am not following any FreeBSD activity or discussion.
> 
> I for one consider FreeBSD mascot as created with quite some sense of
> humor. No more no less.
> Being not religious myself, I do agree with what region [Christian?]
> says, almost all or it: you shouldn't steal, you shouldn't kill, you
> should be kind to others,... The only thing I disagree with is: they
> say God created people, I believe it is other way around: people
> created God for themselves. But as neither can be proven
> experimentally, the last in my book is really minor disagreement ;-)
> Valeri
> Cheers,Nick
> 
> ___CentOS mailing
> listCentOS@centos.orghttps://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Nicolas Kovacs


Le 2021-07-08 17:38, Nikolaos Milas a écrit :

On 8/7/2021 6:19 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:


...
Of course, tastes differ, but still, only those who tasted both things 
can have fairly say what is better to one's own taste.

...
But even as part of our infrastructure fled to FreeBSD...
...


As a side note:

l never used FreeBSD, even though I've heard good things about it.
Frankly, I loathe its devil logo. I know it's probably derived from
the Unix "daemons", yet I fail to get reconciled with it. It's simply
appalling to me (even if it's smiling) :(

I don't require any reply on my above comment (I might even be called
naive or whatever). It's some kind of personal confession which I feel
I need to express somehow. I simply wish FreeBSD people changed this
logo at some point...

I wonder whether FreeBSD users are expressing similar concerns... I am
not following any FreeBSD activity or discussion.


I *love* the FreeBSD logo.

But then I listen to Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson while working, 
so I guess I'm not much of a reference.


Niki




Cheers,
Nick


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


--
Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables
7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat
Site : https://www.microlinux.fr
Mail : i...@microlinux.fr
Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32
Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?




On 7/8/21 10:38 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:

On 8/7/2021 6:19 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:


...
Of course, tastes differ, but still, only those who tasted both things 
can have fairly say what is better to one's own taste.

...
But even as part of our infrastructure fled to FreeBSD...
...


As a side note:

l never used FreeBSD, even though I've heard good things about it. 
Frankly, I loathe its devil logo. I know it's probably derived from the 
Unix "daemons",


THAT must have been part of the reason for mscot. Also, they call mascot 
Beasty (as in diminutive from :"beast"). And if you pronounce the 
abbreviation of Berkeley Software Distribution (the one FreeBSD is 
successor of): BSD, and then "beasty" they sound not that different from 
one another ;-)


Valeri

yet I fail to get reconciled with it. It's simply 
appalling to me (even if it's smiling) :(


I don't require any reply on my above comment (I might even be called 
naive or whatever). It's some kind of personal confession which I feel I 
need to express somehow. I simply wish FreeBSD people changed this logo 
at some point...


I wonder whether FreeBSD users are expressing similar concerns... I am 
not following any FreeBSD activity or discussion.


Cheers,
Nick


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?




On 7/8/21 10:38 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:

On 8/7/2021 6:19 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:


...
Of course, tastes differ, but still, only those who tasted both things 
can have fairly say what is better to one's own taste.

...
But even as part of our infrastructure fled to FreeBSD...
...


As a side note:

l never used FreeBSD, even though I've heard good things about it. 
Frankly, I loathe its devil logo. I know it's probably derived from the 
Unix "daemons", yet I fail to get reconciled with it. It's simply 
appalling to me (even if it's smiling) :(




I _can_ understand religious person's attitude to some images.

I don't require any reply on my above comment (I might even be called 
naive or whatever). It's some kind of personal confession which I feel I 
need to express somehow. I simply wish FreeBSD people changed this logo 
at some point...


I wonder whether FreeBSD users are expressing similar concerns... I am 
not following any FreeBSD activity or discussion.




I for one consider FreeBSD mascot as created with quite some sense of 
humor. No more no less.


Being not religious myself, I do agree with what region [Christian?] 
says, almost all or it: you shouldn't steal, you shouldn't kill, you 
should be kind to others,... The only thing I disagree with is: they say 
God created people, I believe it is other way around: people created God 
for themselves. But as neither can be proven experimentally, the last in 
my book is really minor disagreement ;-)


Valeri


Cheers,
Nick


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 8/7/2021 6:19 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:


...
Of course, tastes differ, but still, only those who tasted both things 
can have fairly say what is better to one's own taste.

...
But even as part of our infrastructure fled to FreeBSD...
...


As a side note:

l never used FreeBSD, even though I've heard good things about it. 
Frankly, I loathe its devil logo. I know it's probably derived from the 
Unix "daemons", yet I fail to get reconciled with it. It's simply 
appalling to me (even if it's smiling) :(


I don't require any reply on my above comment (I might even be called 
naive or whatever). It's some kind of personal confession which I feel I 
need to express somehow. I simply wish FreeBSD people changed this logo 
at some point...


I wonder whether FreeBSD users are expressing similar concerns... I am 
not following any FreeBSD activity or discussion.


Cheers,
Nick


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?




On 7/8/21 8:55 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 08:39:19AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

Well, I fled servers from CentOS to FreeBSD almost a decade ago. And
actually not From CentOS per se, but from Linux. One of the reasons
was: every 45 days on average: glibc or kernel update —> reboot. One
of my friends started using word “Lindoze”. Linux is perfect for
number crunchers and workstations. FreeBSD is waaay better for
servers. In my book that is.

Just straightening small nuance.


If you aren't rebooting your FreeBSD systems regularly, you're just as
vulnerable.

https://www.freebsd.org/security/advisories/

I see one less than 45 days ago that requires a reboot because of a
kernel security measure bypass.

Long uptimes are a thing of the past.  Build redundancy into your
infrastructure so you can handle reboots.



That original reason to flee for us (one of several as it turned out to 
be) is dated 10 years back. Not quite fair to apply today's 
counter-argument to it. Still a year or two ago when I checked last, and 
it was about 2 reboots a year required for FreeBSD, whereas <= 45 days 
is still was a fact for Linux.


But as you have said yourself, we live differently today, and several 
things (like one or few services per jail - the last having read-only 
base system to mention one) still make FreeBSD much simpler to maintain 
for servers. Not to mention, switching from Linux (10 years ago) to 
FreeBSD was quite smoother learning curve than adjusting to systemd and 
friends ;-) (I'm cheating a bit: I did run UNIXes in the past - waaay back).


Of course, tastes differ, but still, only those who tasted both things 
can have fairly say what is better to one's own taste. Saying not to 
Jonathan, of course, who I bet runs several UNIXes, FreeBSD included. 
(of course, not all of them can strictly be called UNIX, - re no 
loyalties to AT).


But even as part of our infrastructure fled to FreeBSD, workstations and 
number crunchers stayed with most adequate for them system: Linux. 
CentOS until recently, Debian once CentOS stopped being "binary replica" 
of RedHat Enterprise. Gionatan Danti mentioned another important reason...


Valeri

--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS


On 08.07.21 14:38, Gionatan Danti wrote:

Il 2021-07-08 13:22 Nikolaos Milas ha scritto:

If some people want to leave the RHEL ecosystem for Debian or FreeBSD,
that's OK. But for those who want to stay in the RHEL world, Rocky
Linux stands as a rock-solid solution. This opinion does not reject
other CentOS clones, but emphasizes the fact that Rocky Linux appears
to be a solid option for now and the years to come.


While true, I also feel that RH is trying to actively shape its 
distribution away from small enterprise needs. For example, common 
packages are deprecated and/or removed (eg: virt-manager, screen, 
kernel-side DRBD, pam_mysql, etc) and EPEL 8 (which is fundamental to my 
CentOS/Rocky installations) is in a bad state.




Maybe "we" could fill this gap? Describe this state of EPEL? Did you
requested such missing packages? From the early on (EL8.0) I requested
such EPEL packages, some fedora maintainers branched there packages into
EPEL8. Even a request for a devel package was honored and the rpm was
included by RH later in 8.1. This is a community, so communicate! 
Everything else is a product in ready state that must be paid.




My impression is that RH is following cloud vendors & hyperscale needs - 
with Stream as a clear example. This is not an inherently bad thing, but 
it quite different from what the small and medium businesses I service 
need.


So, while closely watching RH/CentOS/Rocky, I am going to steer new 
deployments on Ubuntu LTS or Debian.

Regards.





--
Leon
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Paul Heinlein


On Thu, 8 Jul 2021, Jonathan Billings wrote:


Long uptimes are a thing of the past.  Build redundancy into your
infrastructure so you can handle reboots.


+1

Beyond building redundancy, I'd suggest building the culture that sees 
regular maintenance windows as a provider of, not a drag on, value.


--
Paul Heinlein
heinl...@madboa.com
45.38° N, 122.59° W
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Jonathan Billings

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 08:39:19AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> Well, I fled servers from CentOS to FreeBSD almost a decade ago. And
> actually not From CentOS per se, but from Linux. One of the reasons
> was: every 45 days on average: glibc or kernel update —> reboot. One
> of my friends started using word “Lindoze”. Linux is perfect for
> number crunchers and workstations. FreeBSD is waaay better for
> servers. In my book that is. 
> 
> Just straightening small nuance.

If you aren't rebooting your FreeBSD systems regularly, you're just as
vulnerable.

https://www.freebsd.org/security/advisories/

I see one less than 45 days ago that requires a reboot because of a
kernel security measure bypass.

Long uptimes are a thing of the past.  Build redundancy into your
infrastructure so you can handle reboots.

-- 
Jonathan Billings 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?



> On Jul 8, 2021, at 6:22 AM, Nikolaos Milas  wrote:
> 
> On 7/7/2021 8:17 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> 
>> And I feel safe running (and planning to run for long future to come) quite 
>> reputable ones with long history of such: FreeBSD (servers), Debian (number 
>> crunchers, workstations).
> 
> I feel totally safe and confident with the fully community-driven effort of 
> Rocky Linux, lead by the former founder of the original CentOS project. (I am 
> not affiliated with them in any way.)
> 
> As has already been mentioned, Rocky Linux has managed to gain quickly 
> support from major players in the industry (including Google and Microsoft), 
> and is committed to never drop its independent/community status. It is well 
> structured and organized, and embraces a good number of open-source volunteer 
> specialists.
> 
> We want to keep up with RHEL ecosystem and Rocky Linux is - for us - the best 
> option.
> 
> If some people want to leave the RHEL ecosystem for Debian or FreeBSD,

Well, I fled servers from CentOS to FreeBSD almost a decade ago. And actually 
not From CentOS per se, but from Linux. One of the reasons was: every 45 days 
on average: glibc or kernel update —> reboot. One of my friends started using 
word “Lindoze”. Linux is perfect for number crunchers and workstations. FreeBSD 
is waaay better for servers. In my book that is.

Just straightening small nuance.

Valeri

> that's OK. But for those who want to stay in the RHEL world, Rocky Linux 
> stands as a rock-solid solution. This opinion does not reject other CentOS 
> clones, but emphasizes the fact that Rocky Linux appears to be a solid option 
> for now and the years to come.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

Soon, we will all have to find a way to work with other distributions,
or work together to create and maintain new distributions that focus on
micro/small/medium business.  Eventually, this will be the only way to
keep virtualization and hybrid cloud available.  Everyone smells money
and RedHat is now controlled by IBM, so little by little, we can start
seeing the changes, reducing packages, dismantling, re-architecting,
re-branding.  It's only a matter of time.
Greed is worse than cancer.

On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 14:38 +0200, Gionatan Danti wrote:
> Il 2021-07-08 13:22 Nikolaos Milas ha scritto:
> If some people want to leave the RHEL ecosystem for Debian or
> FreeBSD,that's OK. But for those who want to stay in the RHEL world,
> RockyLinux stands as a rock-solid solution. This opinion does not
> rejectother CentOS clones, but emphasizes the fact that Rocky Linux
> appearsto be a solid option for now and the years to come.
> While true, I also feel that RH is trying to actively shape its
> distribution away from small enterprise needs. For example, common
> packages are deprecated and/or removed (eg: virt-manager, screen,
> kernel-side DRBD, pam_mysql, etc) and EPEL 8 (which is fundamental to
> my CentOS/Rocky installations) is in a bad state.
> My impression is that RH is following cloud vendors & hyperscale
> needs - with Stream as a clear example. This is not an inherently bad
> thing, but it quite different from what the small and medium
> businesses I service need.
> So, while closely watching RH/CentOS/Rocky, I am going to steer new
> deployments on Ubuntu LTS or Debian.Regards.
> 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Gionatan Danti


Il 2021-07-08 13:22 Nikolaos Milas ha scritto:

If some people want to leave the RHEL ecosystem for Debian or FreeBSD,
that's OK. But for those who want to stay in the RHEL world, Rocky
Linux stands as a rock-solid solution. This opinion does not reject
other CentOS clones, but emphasizes the fact that Rocky Linux appears
to be a solid option for now and the years to come.


While true, I also feel that RH is trying to actively shape its 
distribution away from small enterprise needs. For example, common 
packages are deprecated and/or removed (eg: virt-manager, screen, 
kernel-side DRBD, pam_mysql, etc) and EPEL 8 (which is fundamental to my 
CentOS/Rocky installations) is in a bad state.


My impression is that RH is following cloud vendors & hyperscale needs - 
with Stream as a clear example. This is not an inherently bad thing, but 
it quite different from what the small and medium businesses I service 
need.


So, while closely watching RH/CentOS/Rocky, I am going to steer new 
deployments on Ubuntu LTS or Debian.

Regards.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 7/7/2021 8:17 μ.μ., Valeri Galtsev wrote:

And I feel safe running (and planning to run for long future to come) 
quite reputable ones with long history of such: FreeBSD (servers), 
Debian (number crunchers, workstations).


I feel totally safe and confident with the fully community-driven effort 
of Rocky Linux, lead by the former founder of the original CentOS 
project. (I am not affiliated with them in any way.)


As has already been mentioned, Rocky Linux has managed to gain quickly 
support from major players in the industry (including Google and 
Microsoft), and is committed to never drop its independent/community 
status. It is well structured and organized, and embraces a good number 
of open-source volunteer specialists.


We want to keep up with RHEL ecosystem and Rocky Linux is - for us - the 
best option.


If some people want to leave the RHEL ecosystem for Debian or FreeBSD, 
that's OK. But for those who want to stay in the RHEL world, Rocky Linux 
stands as a rock-solid solution. This opinion does not reject other 
CentOS clones, but emphasizes the fact that Rocky Linux appears to be a 
solid option for now and the years to come.


Cheers,
Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Mark Rousell

On 08/07/2021 09:09, Mark Rousell wrote:
> I'm not affiliated with Navy Linux but it seems to me there's nothing
> inconsistent there. They say it was set up as a community project on
> January 4, 2021 and a foundation (a common component of community
> projects) was formed on June 14, 2021.
>
> That's all perfectly straight and consistent. Rocky, for example,
> followed the same process didn't it: The community was formed and then a
> foundation followed soon afterwards.

P.S. Despite my comment above, I do agree that the disappearing of their
reference to "Unixlabs" on their website is not confidence-inspiring.
And not making it clear which/who this Unixlabs is, is even more
frustrating.


-- 
Mark Rousell
 
 
 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-08 Thread Mark Rousell

On 07/07/2021 17:52, Jon Pruente wrote:
> That furthers what I wrote earlier. That says:
>  > Date of formation: June 14, 2021
>
> Yet the about page ( https://navylinux.org/about/ ) was changed to say:
>> Navy Linux and The Navy Linux Project is an on-going community project
> founded by Navy Foundation on January 4, 2021.
>
> They don't have a straight story, and they've been changing it
> inconsistently. That's not how you build trust.

I'm not affiliated with Navy Linux but it seems to me there's nothing
inconsistent there. They say it was set up as a community project on
January 4, 2021 and a foundation (a common component of community
projects) was formed on June 14, 2021.

That's all perfectly straight and consistent. Rocky, for example,
followed the same process didn't it: The community was formed and then a
foundation followed soon afterwards.

-- 
Mark Rousell

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Jon Pruente

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:04 AM Jon Pruente 
wrote:

> Deleted tweet link:
> https://twitter.com/NavyLinux/status/1408429562472677381
>

For completeness, here's a WayBackMachine link to the deleted tweet.
Luckily it got archived.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210625141924/https://twitter.com/NavyLinux/status/1408429562472677381

> @NavyLinux
> Truthfully, last production release from RHEL /CentOS 7.8.  stay on
CentOS 7 not need to move forward to new unstable vendors, wait and watch
Upcoming changes.  already on CentOS 8 wait until a stable reslease ready
for upgrad.@GuyLinux @CentOSannounce #Linux
> 7:19 AM - 25 Jun 2021
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Valeri Galtsev

On 7/7/21 12:08 PM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:

On 07.07.21 18:04, Jon Pruente wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:41 AM Leon Fauster via CentOS
mailto:centos@centos.org>> wrote:

Here is another one:

https://navylinux.org/

Navy Linux has a bad taste already, for me. They are aiming too big,
even trying to replicate EPEL for themselves. And their attitude isn't
good. They had a tweet disparaging "new unstable vendors" of EL
distros that they only deleted after being called out for it, despite
being one of those themselves.

Deleted tweet link:
https://twitter.com/NavyLinux/status/1408429562472677381

They used to say they were founded by "Unixlab". Which Unixlab? We
don't know. Now they say they are a non-profit Foundation that founded
the project.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kZLBFcdLyrYJ:https://navylinux.org/about/+=1=en=clnk=us

The Division of Corporations in DELAWARE shows:
Formation Date: 6/14/2021 (mm/dd/)

Anyway, in the context of ongoing attacks to the supply chain.
This situation where CentOS is running EOL will motivate new
black hats to step into the place. Imagine a massive deployed
OS that is trojanized?!

So trust is here king and despite all adversity (that also hits me
hard) we should thinks twice before running away into foreign arms.

And I feel safe running (and planning to run for long future to come)
quite reputable ones with long history of such: FreeBSD (servers),
Debian (number crunchers, workstations).

Valeri

--
Leon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS


On 07.07.21 18:04, Jon Pruente wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:41 AM Leon Fauster via CentOS 
mailto:centos@centos.org>> wrote:


Here is another one:

https://navylinux.org/ 


Navy Linux has a bad taste already, for me. They are aiming too big, 
even trying to replicate EPEL for themselves. And their attitude isn't 
good. They had a tweet disparaging "new unstable vendors" of EL distros 
that they only deleted after being called out for it, despite being one 
of those themselves.


Deleted tweet link:
https://twitter.com/NavyLinux/status/1408429562472677381 



They used to say they were founded by "Unixlab". Which Unixlab? We don't 
know. Now they say they are a non-profit Foundation that founded the 
project.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kZLBFcdLyrYJ:https://navylinux.org/about/+=1=en=clnk=us 





+1

The Division of Corporations in DELAWARE shows:
Formation Date: 6/14/2021 (mm/dd/)

Anyway, in the context of ongoing attacks to the supply chain.
This situation where CentOS is running EOL will motivate new
black hats to step into the place. Imagine a massive deployed
OS that is trojanized?!

So trust is here king and despite all adversity (that also hits me
hard) we should thinks twice before running away into foreign arms.

--
Leon








___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Jon Pruente

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:14 AM Simon Matter  wrote:

> > BTW, anyone know who the "Navy Foundation" are?  Is this an arm of the
> > US government?
> >
> > Martin
>
> See https://navylinux.org/news/legal/

That furthers what I wrote earlier. That says:
 > Date of formation: June 14, 2021

Yet the about page ( https://navylinux.org/about/ ) was changed to say:
> Navy Linux and The Navy Linux Project is an on-going community project
founded by Navy Foundation on January 4, 2021.

They don't have a straight story, and they've been changing it
inconsistently. That's not how you build trust.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Simon Matter

> On 07/07/2021 13:41, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
>> On 07.07.21 14:31, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:
>>> Fashion, and Oracle's past practices.  I evaluated
>>>  Alma Linux
>>>  Fedora
>>>  Mint
>>>  Open SuSE
>>>  Oracle Linux
>>>  Springdale Linux
>>> and settled on Alma.  Rocky was still vapourware when Alma was stable.
>>> I've seen how Oracle promise no change in the long term, then change
>>> their charging model in the past.  We got badly burned at work when
>>> they took over DEC RDB.
>>>
>>> I like Alma's independence built on Cloud's experience over many years
>>> building RHEL clones.
>>>
>>
>> Here is another one:
>>
>> https://navylinux.org/
>>
>> --
>> Leon
>>
>> ___
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
> I hadn't seen that one, but I do notice that it aims to be "minimalist"
> whereas my main machine is the network server (DNS, DHCP etc), a server
> (Wiki, Cloud, storage) and my workstation.
>
> BTW, anyone know who the "Navy Foundation" are?  Is this an arm of the
> US government?
>
> Martin

See https://navylinux.org/news/legal/

Simon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Jon Pruente

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:41 AM Leon Fauster via CentOS 
wrote:

> Here is another one:
>
> https://navylinux.org/

Navy Linux has a bad taste already, for me. They are aiming too big, even
trying to replicate EPEL for themselves. And their attitude isn't good.
They had a tweet disparaging "new unstable vendors" of EL distros that they
only deleted after being called out for it, despite being one of those
themselves.

Deleted tweet link:
https://twitter.com/NavyLinux/status/1408429562472677381

They used to say they were founded by "Unixlab". Which Unixlab? We don't
know. Now they say they are a non-profit Foundation that founded the
project.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kZLBFcdLyrYJ:https://navylinux.org/about/+=1=en=clnk=us
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread HEDE Patrick

Hi
  What about https://rockylinux.org ?
Best regards
Pat


-Message d'origine-
De : CentOS  De la part de J Martin Rushton via 
CentOS
Envoyé : mercredi 7 juillet 2021 17:39
À : centos@centos.org
Objet : Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

On 07/07/2021 13:41, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
> On 07.07.21 14:31, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:
>> Fashion, and Oracle's past practices.  I evaluated
>>  Alma Linux
>>  Fedora
>>  Mint
>>  Open SuSE
>>  Oracle Linux
>>  Springdale Linux
>> and settled on Alma.  Rocky was still vapourware when Alma was stable. 
>> I've seen how Oracle promise no change in the long term, then change 
>> their charging model in the past.  We got badly burned at work when 
>> they took over DEC RDB.
>>
>> I like Alma's independence built on Cloud's experience over many 
>> years building RHEL clones.
>>
> 
> Here is another one:
> 
> https://navylinux.org/
> 
> --
> Leon
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

I hadn't seen that one, but I do notice that it aims to be "minimalist" 
whereas my main machine is the network server (DNS, DHCP etc), a server (Wiki, 
Cloud, storage) and my workstation.

BTW, anyone know who the "Navy Foundation" are?  Is this an arm of the US 
government?

Martin

--
J Martin Rushton MBCS
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread J Martin Rushton via CentOS


On 07/07/2021 13:41, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:

On 07.07.21 14:31, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:

Fashion, and Oracle's past practices.  I evaluated
 Alma Linux
 Fedora
 Mint
 Open SuSE
 Oracle Linux
 Springdale Linux
and settled on Alma.  Rocky was still vapourware when Alma was stable. 
I've seen how Oracle promise no change in the long term, then change 
their charging model in the past.  We got badly burned at work when 
they took over DEC RDB.


I like Alma's independence built on Cloud's experience over many years 
building RHEL clones.




Here is another one:

https://navylinux.org/

--
Leon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


I hadn't seen that one, but I do notice that it aims to be "minimalist" 
whereas my main machine is the network server (DNS, DHCP etc), a server 
(Wiki, Cloud, storage) and my workstation.


BTW, anyone know who the "Navy Foundation" are?  Is this an arm of the 
US government?


Martin

--
J Martin Rushton MBCS
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Valeri Galtsev



> On Jul 7, 2021, at 5:07 AM, Nikolaos Milas  wrote:
> 
> On 7/7/2021 12:47 μ.μ., J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:
> 
>> There's also Alma, which is where I've gone after being with CentOS since 
>> 5.3 
> 
> AlmaLinux is a great project too, IMHO, but things show that the new industry 
> standard (replacing CentOS) will probably be Rocky Linux.

In our stables it is Debian that replaces CentOS. (And it is closer to FreeBSD 
in several aspects, the last is what the servers run).

Valeri

> (Yes, RHEL **AND** CentOS have indeed been industry standards - the point of 
> reference -, IMHO, and this is what IBM/RHEL have failed to realize: You 
> don't alter a point of reference.)
> 
> It is interesting to see what Service Providers will do with their (huge 
> numbers of) CentOS installations, when they migrate...
> 
> From the users/admins' perspective it is to their interest to have robust and 
> healthy alternatives.
> 
> In our org, I am now using Rocky Linux on new installations (without issues) 
> and will be migrating several CentOS 8 boxes to Rocky Linux as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread J. Adam Craig

Agreed re OEL.

A few months after the CentOS 8.x deprecation news was released, Oracle
Sales reached out to my organisation and reminded us that OEL was free to
use, with migration scripts available.

We briefly considered migrating from CentOS to OEL, but ultimately decided
against it since, as Danti indicates above, Oracle has a questionable
history, and we feared that their "free as in beer" approach may change to
more of a RHEL approach once their user base was sufficiently expanded.

Rocky is community-driven with substantial sponsorship from large,
respected enterprises, whereas Alma and OEL are both tied at the hip to
corporations.  While noone really knows what the future holds, enough of us
have been burned by what has been done to CentOS 8.x that we frankly know
the stove is hot, and don't really want to touch it again, if it can be
helped.

As others have stated, I appreciate and respect Red Hat's vision for CentOS
Stream, and I do wish the project all the best.  (I'm running 8-Stream on
most of my laptops and workstations now, in fact. -- It is nice to know
what is in the EL pipeline!)  I think there's a great argument for using
Stream on DEV systems, etc., provided there is a plan to move corresponding
PROD machines to the new EL release by the end of the Full Support window.
The decision to abandon Stream 8 in 2024 (vs. 2029) makes broad use of it
in my environment a non-starter, in most cases.

As many have observed, the Stream change would've been much more welcome
were it announced beginning with EL 9.x, but pulling the rug out from
beneath CentOS 8.x with a year's notice, right after so many of us had just
finished migrating workloads to it in anticipation of EL 6.x EOL was a very
poor decision, imho.

*J. Adam Craig*
Lead Linux Operating Systems Analyst
VCU Infrastructure Services 
Technology Services Department
804.828.4886
jacr...@vcu.edu

*Don't be a phishing victim -- VCU and other reputable organisations will
never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
security number or confidential personal information.  For more details,
visit 
**https://ts.vcu.edu/about-us/information-security/common-questions/what-is-phishing
*

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:19 AM Nicolas Kovacs  wrote:

> Le 07/07/2021 à 11:44, Nikolaos Milas a écrit :
> > RESF / Rocky Linux is gaining worldwide recognition and sets itself as
> the
> > primary organization / platform to become the CentOS 8 heir / successor
> in the
> > future.
>
> Rocky Linux is the New Kid On The Block and gets all the attention.
>
> Whereas Oracle Linux (the best RHEL clone in terms of maintenance
> reactivity)
> has been around since 2006, free as in beer since 2012, and nobody wants to
> touch it.
>
> Go figure.
>
> --
> Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables
> 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat
> Site : https://www.microlinux.fr
> Blog : https://blog.microlinux.fr
> Mail : i...@microlinux.fr
> Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32
> Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS


On 07.07.21 14:31, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:

Fashion, and Oracle's past practices.  I evaluated
     Alma Linux
     Fedora
     Mint
     Open SuSE
     Oracle Linux
     Springdale Linux
and settled on Alma.  Rocky was still vapourware when Alma was stable. 
I've seen how Oracle promise no change in the long term, then change 
their charging model in the past.  We got badly burned at work when they 
took over DEC RDB.


I like Alma's independence built on Cloud's experience over many years 
building RHEL clones.




Here is another one:

https://navylinux.org/

--
Leon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Scott Robbins

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:18:58PM +0200, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
> Le 07/07/2021 à 11:44, Nikolaos Milas a écrit :
> > RESF / Rocky Linux is gaining worldwide recognition and sets itself as the
> > primary organization / platform to become the CentOS 8 heir / successor in 
> > the
> > future.
> 
> Rocky Linux is the New Kid On The Block and gets all the attention.
> 
> Whereas Oracle Linux (the best RHEL clone in terms of maintenance reactivity)
> has been around since 2006, free as in beer since 2012, and nobody wants to
> touch it.
> 
> Go figure.

It's simply that Oracle has such a bad reputation in dealing with Open
source. Many people doubt them, and doubt that they won't change things in
the future if they think they have a good chance at making money from it.  

I think that right now, many are either going to use Rocky or Alma. 
I suspect that over time, one of them, will be far more used than the
other, and become the next CentOS, in the sense that while there were a few
RH clones, almost everyone chose CentOS.

-- 
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread J Martin Rushton via CentOS


Fashion, and Oracle's past practices.  I evaluated
Alma Linux
Fedora
Mint
Open SuSE
Oracle Linux
Springdale Linux
and settled on Alma.  Rocky was still vapourware when Alma was stable. 
I've seen how Oracle promise no change in the long term, then change 
their charging model in the past.  We got badly burned at work when they 
took over DEC RDB.


I like Alma's independence built on Cloud's experience over many years 
building RHEL clones.


Just my 2d worth.

On 07/07/2021 13:18, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:

Le 07/07/2021 à 11:44, Nikolaos Milas a écrit :

RESF / Rocky Linux is gaining worldwide recognition and sets itself as the
primary organization / platform to become the CentOS 8 heir / successor in the
future.


Rocky Linux is the New Kid On The Block and gets all the attention.

Whereas Oracle Linux (the best RHEL clone in terms of maintenance reactivity)
has been around since 2006, free as in beer since 2012, and nobody wants to
touch it.

Go figure.



--
J Martin Rushton MBCS
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Nicolas Kovacs

Le 07/07/2021 à 11:44, Nikolaos Milas a écrit :
> RESF / Rocky Linux is gaining worldwide recognition and sets itself as the
> primary organization / platform to become the CentOS 8 heir / successor in the
> future.

Rocky Linux is the New Kid On The Block and gets all the attention.

Whereas Oracle Linux (the best RHEL clone in terms of maintenance reactivity)
has been around since 2006, free as in beer since 2012, and nobody wants to
touch it.

Go figure.

-- 
Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables
7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat
Site : https://www.microlinux.fr
Blog : https://blog.microlinux.fr
Mail : i...@microlinux.fr
Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32
Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Gionatan Danti


Il 2021-07-07 11:44 Nikolaos Milas ha scritto:

I re-visit this thread, since it is crucial for CentOS 8 users.

RESF / Rocky Linux is gaining worldwide recognition and sets itself as
the primary organization / platform to become the CentOS 8 heir /
successor in the future.

Google and Microsoft become RESF sponsors/partners:

   https://rockylinux.org/news/community-update-june-2021/

And so IBM/RH lose the tremendous advantage they had by owning the
CentOS project, which - it seems - never evaluated correctly.

From now on, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of CentOS
installations will be migrating to Rocky Linux.

I also wish the best of success to CentOS Stream, but this is not what
the CentOS community expected.


Yeah, I share this view.

As a side note, I evaluated Oracle Linux because it has working secure 
boot, but I am somewhat afraid of using it (due to corporate practices). 
This probably is an irrational feeling (after all, I do not exclusively 
use MariaDB, but MySQL also), but I prefer to stay on the safe side.


Anyway, I strongly feel that IBM/RH miscalculated the move.
Regards.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS


On 07.07.21 12:07, Nikolaos Milas wrote:

On 7/7/2021 12:47 μ.μ., J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:

There's also Alma, which is where I've gone after being with CentOS 
since 5.3 


AlmaLinux is a great project too, IMHO, but things show that the new 
industry standard (replacing CentOS) will probably be Rocky Linux.


(Yes, RHEL **AND** CentOS have indeed been industry standards - the 
point of reference -, IMHO, and this is what IBM/RHEL have failed to 
realize: You don't alter a point of reference.)



It should not be forgotten that  Rocky Linux will be a 1:1 rebuild, also 
in the future. So, to shape this future everyone is invited to 
participate at CentOS Stream. This is a great future or not?




It is interesting to see what Service Providers will do with their (huge 
numbers of) CentOS installations, when they migrate...


 From the users/admins' perspective it is to their interest to have 
robust and healthy alternatives.


In our org, I am now using Rocky Linux on new installations (without 
issues) and will be migrating several CentOS 8 boxes to Rocky Linux as 
well.


Cheers,
Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Nikolaos Milas


On 7/7/2021 12:47 μ.μ., J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:

There's also Alma, which is where I've gone after being with CentOS 
since 5.3 


AlmaLinux is a great project too, IMHO, but things show that the new 
industry standard (replacing CentOS) will probably be Rocky Linux.


(Yes, RHEL **AND** CentOS have indeed been industry standards - the 
point of reference -, IMHO, and this is what IBM/RHEL have failed to 
realize: You don't alter a point of reference.)


It is interesting to see what Service Providers will do with their (huge 
numbers of) CentOS installations, when they migrate...


From the users/admins' perspective it is to their interest to have 
robust and healthy alternatives.


In our org, I am now using Rocky Linux on new installations (without 
issues) and will be migrating several CentOS 8 boxes to Rocky Linux as well.


Cheers,
Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread J Martin Rushton via CentOS

There's also Alma, which is where I've gone after being with CentOS 
since 5.3


On 07/07/2021 10:44, Nikolaos Milas wrote:

On 30/4/2021 7:27 μ.μ., Gionatan Danti wrote:



The correct answer is to buy RH: fine. But do not let Stream touch 
anything which require a kABI compatible modules. As said above, the 
Stream move is squarely addresses *cloud* vendor requests and needs. 
Again, fine. But please leave apart the RH comparison, this is not 
going to help Stream.


Again, don't let me wrong: I wishes the best to Stream, and I will use 
it where appropriate. But "where" is much smaller today than 
yesterday. But this aside, I really thank you all CentOS maintainer 
for your monumental work, and I really hope Stream will be a success. 


I re-visit this thread, since it is crucial for CentOS 8 users.

RESF / Rocky Linux is gaining worldwide recognition and sets itself as 
the primary organization / platform to become the CentOS 8 heir / 
successor in the future.


Google and Microsoft become RESF sponsors/partners:

    https://rockylinux.org/news/community-update-june-2021/

And so IBM/RH lose the tremendous advantage they had by owning the 
CentOS project, which - it seems - never evaluated correctly.


 From now on, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of CentOS 
installations will be migrating to Rocky Linux.


I also wish the best of success to CentOS Stream, but this is not what 
the CentOS community expected.


My 2c.
Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


--
J Martin Rushton MBCS
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-07-07 Thread Nikolaos Milas


On 30/4/2021 7:27 μ.μ., Gionatan Danti wrote:



The correct answer is to buy RH: fine. But do not let Stream touch 
anything which require a kABI compatible modules. As said above, the 
Stream move is squarely addresses *cloud* vendor requests and needs. 
Again, fine. But please leave apart the RH comparison, this is not 
going to help Stream.


Again, don't let me wrong: I wishes the best to Stream, and I will use 
it where appropriate. But "where" is much smaller today than 
yesterday. But this aside, I really thank you all CentOS maintainer 
for your monumental work, and I really hope Stream will be a success. 


I re-visit this thread, since it is crucial for CentOS 8 users.

RESF / Rocky Linux is gaining worldwide recognition and sets itself as 
the primary organization / platform to become the CentOS 8 heir / 
successor in the future.


Google and Microsoft become RESF sponsors/partners:

   https://rockylinux.org/news/community-update-june-2021/

And so IBM/RH lose the tremendous advantage they had by owning the 
CentOS project, which - it seems - never evaluated correctly.


From now on, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of CentOS 
installations will be migrating to Rocky Linux.


I also wish the best of success to CentOS Stream, but this is not what 
the CentOS community expected.


My 2c.
Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-30 Thread Gionatan Danti


Il 2021-04-30 21:16 Gordon Messmer ha scritto:

Critics of Stream often argue that CentOS users are losing support
that CentOS never had to begin with.  Their argument implies that
CentOS has aspects of RHEL that it does not.  They are not correct.


From here [1]:
"Since March 2004, CentOS Linux has been a community-supported 
distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by Red 
Hat. As such, CentOS Linux aims to be functionally compatible with RHEL. 
We mainly change packages to remove upstream vendor branding and 
artwork. CentOS Linux is no-cost and free to redistribute."


Does it means that CentOS was appropriate on all scenario? No. Was 
CentOS making hard promises about their support or existence? No. So it 
is *fine* for classical CentOS to disappear if the developer / owner 
want that. Long live Stream!


But stating that Stream is functionally equivalent to CentOS is not 
correct. Fact is that the CentOS team did a wonderful work at repackage 
RHEL, so 99.9% of times it just worked. And it worked for all the time 
the corresponding RHEL was supported (7 or 10 years). In return, RedHat 
(and so CentOS) got much testing and bug-report (I alone reported my 
fair share of bugs, some with hours/days spent try to reliably reproduce 
and tracking down them).


Now, with a moving kernel, you simply can't provide this level of 
confidence. DKMS is not a silver bullet. See here [2] for an example. 
Rebooting your kernel and finding you can't access your storage is a 
quite a significant problem, no? And when I migrated a test machine to 
Stream some months ago, even something as basic as dnf had its issues. 
While I hope that now the situation is better, I hardly can see Stream 
equivalent to old CentOS.


Regards.

[1] 
https://web.archive.org/web/20200721184556/https://www.centos.org/about/
[2] 
https://listman.redhat.com/archives/vdo-devel/2021-January/msg5.html




Does that make sense?  Please, go back and read my earlier message
again.  You seem to think I am complaining that CentOS is not
supported, but I am not.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 4/30/21 11:36 AM, R C wrote:
No, I think you've completely missed the point that I was making, 
which was simply that criticism of CentOS Stream often mistakenly 
argues that because of the change, users of CentOS lose things that 
they never had to begin with.


I don't know for sure if that argument was ever made, but if it was, 
they are entirely correct.  Again, it was for free, it is up to 'them' 
to do something else if they wish, what ever the circumstances of 
their decisions. It was your choice to use it, for free, and your 
choice doesn't mean an obligation on their part, they don't owe you 
anything ... so yes, you never had it to begin with. 



I think we're still talking past each other, but I'll try one last time:

Critics of Stream often argue that CentOS users are losing support that 
CentOS never had to begin with.  Their argument implies that CentOS has 
aspects of RHEL that it does not.  They are not correct.


Does that make sense?  Please, go back and read my earlier message 
again.  You seem to think I am complaining that CentOS is not supported, 
but I am not.



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-30 Thread Valeri Galtsev




On 4/30/21 12:53 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:

On 4/30/21 6:19 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Why do, you, people use “creative editing”? Cite the whole piece I 
said, and place your question there, don’t tear single phrase out of 
context.



It's not "creative editing", it's quote trimming in a forum which 
provides threaded discussions.  It's the recommended etiquette for this 
forum, and has been for decades.  Context can be readily provided from 
the parent message which is available to everyone who received my 
reply.  But if it makes you happy, I'll expand the quote and ask the 
question again:



On 4/29/21 8:51 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
A. "I am going to install CentOS which is binary replica of RedHat 
Enterprise", so whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on 
CentOS [implying my reputation behind merely an ability to install 
binary packages and common sense of what binary files are there on 
both systems in questions]


B. There is CentOS which is promised (I am borrowing your phrasing 
here) "WILL BE extreamly similar to RHEL + a couple months"


but in the second  case I can not put my reputation at stake and 
finish my phrase with "whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work 
on CentOS". 



Why do you think that?  Are RHEL (and CentOS) point releases backward 
compatible or not?  If you trust point releases to work, why would you 
hesitate to trust a distribution that resembles an upcoming point release?




As you can see in all what I said above, I'm "selling" to my user one or 
another distribution. Meaning I offer them particular distribution, and 
tell them what to expect. With old CentOS, i.e. in case A, "binary 
replica" tells even non-technical users, all will work as on famous 
expensive product, including stability...


Now case B, namely "stream" incarnation of CentOS, I can not promise the 
same simply put expectation in my user's minds.


Do I trust that I will be able to install all they need in Stream? - 
absolutely.


Can I promise all will work during [even shorter] life cycle of stream 
without "glitches"? - With all honesty, no. And I will not jeopardize my 
reputation in front of my users by not mentioning "expect glitches". 
Pardon my non-technical language which I prefer to use with my users.


As others said, this architecture of this new "stream" composition, - 
let me say theoretically as I don't want to go into details of how 
extremely well you do your technical part, which I am in no position to 
question - theoretically one can imagine problems happen time to time 
which one will not encounter using "binary replica" of RedHat Enterprise.


In other words, when talking to me, please, consider me a layman, who 
can understand simple logic, and rely on reputation earned by 
distribution during it long existence. So for me in my layman suite:


1. RedHat, including Enterprise: yes, by all means

2. "binary replica of RedHat Enterprise" CentOS which existed for over a 
couple of decades as such, - yes by all means


3. other binary replicas I didn't observe carefully long enough, so can 
not offer any judgement. Except for Scientific Linux which by several 
reasons I turned down as something one can built future based on, and it 
didn't last long, so I thanked myself for staying away from it...


4. CentOS "stream", sorry this modus operandi does not exists long 
enough to earn "long standing brilliant reputation" of [and put here 
what you faithfully are saying about Stream] - not in my book though, 
and not that I with all faith in it can say to anyone whom I will be 
installing system on their machine.


Which all leaves me with option:

5. I know this [Debian, FreeBSD, or place there whichever distribution 
_you_ know long history of] system is a "rolling release", so what is 
installed may change version (and some software internals!) time to time 
during the life of the system, and things may break occasionally because 
of that. But this distro exists since forever and I can promise I will 
be there to see things are fixed when necessary. And this way of 
maintaining things exists for long time, and many people live with its 
negative sides, so we will be in a big good company of others like us.



I probably can faithfully say the same as 5 about CentOS Stream, though 
I should strike "long existence" thus you [addressing my user here] will 
not see statistics over past life. But then, I have less to offer as 
expectation compared to other alternative systems.



And as someone mentioned at the beginning of this whole thing that shook 
our - CentOS users' worls -: the reputation lies on long positive 
performance. And changing suddenly something just negates all past great 
reputation. Even worse: now people [take that as all crowd of layman 
ones] know something can be changed on whim, and it will take a decade 
to regain the reputation.


This skews grossly out of subject, and I am reluctant to move up my 
writing and find the place where to put my

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-30 Thread R C



On 4/30/21 12:20 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:

On 4/30/21 11:03 AM, R C wrote:

CentOS has *never* had support from Red Hat.


So what is it you expect?, get an enterprise quality OS for free, and 
also expect highly paid, expensive, engineers to support your need 
for assistance on a whim for free too? 



No, I think you've completely missed the point that I was making, 
which was simply that criticism of CentOS Stream often mistakenly 
argues that because of the change, users of CentOS lose things that 
they never had to begin with.


I don't know for sure if that argument was ever made, but if it was, 
they are entirely correct.  Again, it was for free, it is up to 'them' 
to do something else if they wish, what ever the circumstances of their 
decisions. It was your choice to use it, for free, and your choice 
doesn't mean an obligation on their part, they don't owe you anything 
... so yes, you never had it to begin with.




___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 4/30/21 11:03 AM, R C wrote:

CentOS has *never* had support from Red Hat.


So what is it you expect?, get an enterprise quality OS for free, and 
also expect highly paid, expensive, engineers to support your need for 
assistance on a whim for free too? 



No, I think you've completely missed the point that I was making, which 
was simply that criticism of CentOS Stream often mistakenly argues that 
because of the change, users of CentOS lose things that they never had 
to begin with.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-30 Thread R C


.

.

.

%<



CentOS has *never* had support from Red Hat.  If you want to run a 
stable, supported production environment while you complete testing of 
a new minor release, you can get that from RHEL but not CentOS.  If 
you want to apply only security updates to a production environment to 
reduce risk (in the sense of both security and stability risks), you 
can get that from RHEL but not CentOS.  If you want to call an 
engineer for support when you have a problem in production, you can 
get that from RHEL, but not CentOS.


So what is it you expect?, get an enterprise quality OS for free, and 
also expect highly paid, expensive, engineers to support your need for 
assistance on a whim for free too? Of course RHEL is very good at 
supporting their distros/releases, I use it often enough, because it is 
paid for (by my employer). You get what you pay for, and I have the 
impression that you using Centos and the support you DID get, probably 
didn't cost you a penny. I used both for the longest while, RHEL at 
work, Centos at home. Centos, as the (free) RHEL 'twin', is going away, 
so be it. Now I switched to RHEL both at home and of course still at 
work, RHEL even supports that, both.




So, I will agree with you on one point: Support is the thing that 
makes RHEL valuable.  The product is excellent, but it's not the 
product that Red Hat's really selling, it's the support.  It's the 
things that their engineers do so that you don't have to, as their 
customer.  And CentOS has never offered that.


Of course, you can fill some of those gaps with your own engineering, 
but if you're filling those gaps with local engineering today, you 
should be able to fill them using Stream, too.



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 4/30/21 6:19 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

Why do, you, people use “creative editing”? Cite the whole piece I said, and 
place your question there, don’t tear single phrase out of context.



It's not "creative editing", it's quote trimming in a forum which 
provides threaded discussions.  It's the recommended etiquette for this 
forum, and has been for decades.  Context can be readily provided from 
the parent message which is available to everyone who received my 
reply.  But if it makes you happy, I'll expand the quote and ask the 
question again:



On 4/29/21 8:51 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
A. "I am going to install CentOS which is binary replica of RedHat 
Enterprise", so whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on 
CentOS [implying my reputation behind merely an ability to install 
binary packages and common sense of what binary files are there on 
both systems in questions]


B. There is CentOS which is promised (I am borrowing your phrasing 
here) "WILL BE extreamly similar to RHEL + a couple months"


but in the second  case I can not put my reputation at stake and 
finish my phrase with "whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work 
on CentOS". 



Why do you think that?  Are RHEL (and CentOS) point releases backward 
compatible or not?  If you trust point releases to work, why would you 
hesitate to trust a distribution that resembles an upcoming point release?


(And if you don't trust point releases, why would you use the OS at all?)


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?


On 4/30/21 2:32 AM, Gionatan Danti wrote:


Don't get me wrong: I understand that Stream is the way forward and 
that things are not going to change, and this is fine. But trying to 
ignore the key differences (shorter support, unknown upgrade from 
Stream-8 to Stream-9, broken kABI, etc) is not useful to anyone.



    1: shorter support

CentOS support was not nearly as good as some people make it out to be.  
(I don't mean to denigrate the work of the CentOS maintainers, at all.  
I don't think this is a fault of theirs, only a realistic assessment of 
the consequences of the downstream placement of CentOS relative to 
RHEL.)  Each CentOS minor version was supported for (on average) five 
months.  At the end of that five months, there was (on average) no 
support for one month until the next minor release was ready and updates 
resumed.  Compare that to RHEL, in which every major release had 
continuous support without gaps for ~10 years and additionally, many 
minor releases had support for two years.  I will happily take Stream's 
uninterrupted life cycle over CentOS's longer but discontinuous life cycle.


Criticism of Stream on this point rests entirely on the idea that 
CentOS's life cycle was the same as RHEL's, but that has never been true.


    2: Unknown upgrade path

https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#How_do_I_upgrade_from_one_major_release_to_another.3F

"Upgrades in place are not supported nor recommended by CentOS"

https://access.redhat.com/solutions/21964

Red Hat does have *limited* support for in-place upgrades, but that is 
fairly recent.


Again, criticism of Stream on this point rests on the idea that CentOS's 
upgrade path was the same as RHEL's, but that is not the case.


    3: kABI changes

kABI changes in CentOS with every minor release, and the best solution 
here is probably to treat all kernel updates the same way you treat 
CentOS minor update today.  Use DKMS.  Build reproducible package sets 
with Katello, or Pulp, or reposync, or Spacewalk.  Test them.  Promote 
those to production when they're ready.


That's the same thing that we do, today, in enterprise environments.


Stream is a *different* product, because is avoid (for the good or the 
bad) basically *all* things that make RHEL so special. And lets face 
it: kABI and long/quality support from RedHat are the only two things 
which make RHEL special. Stripping them from CentOS



CentOS has *never* had support from Red Hat.  If you want to run a 
stable, supported production environment while you complete testing of a 
new minor release, you can get that from RHEL but not CentOS.  If you 
want to apply only security updates to a production environment to 
reduce risk (in the sense of both security and stability risks), you can 
get that from RHEL but not CentOS.  If you want to call an engineer for 
support when you have a problem in production, you can get that from 
RHEL, but not CentOS.


So, I will agree with you on one point: Support is the thing that makes 
RHEL valuable.  The product is excellent, but it's not the product that 
Red Hat's really selling, it's the support.  It's the things that their 
engineers do so that you don't have to, as their customer.  And CentOS 
has never offered that.


Of course, you can fill some of those gaps with your own engineering, 
but if you're filling those gaps with local engineering today, you 
should be able to fill them using Stream, too.



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-30 Thread Gionatan Danti


Il 2021-04-30 16:26 Johnny Hughes ha scritto:

On 4/30/21 4:32 AM, Gionatan Danti wrote:

Il 2021-04-30 06:55 Gordon Messmer ha scritto:

Why do you think that?  Are RHEL (and CentOS) point releases backward
compatible or not?  If you trust point releases to work, why would 
you

hesitate to trust a distribution that resembles an upcoming point
release?


Because it very often break kABI compatibility, with 3rd party module
heavily affected.

Don't get me wrong: I understand that Stream is the way forward and 
that

things are not going to change, and this is fine. But trying to ignore
the key differences (shorter support, unknown upgrade from Stream-8 to
Stream-9, broken kABI, etc) is not useful to anyone.

Stream is a *different* product, because is avoid (for the good or the
bad) basically *all* things that make RHEL so special. And lets face 
it:
kABI and long/quality support from RedHat are the only two things 
which

make RHEL special. Stripping them from CentOS will produce a very
different product. And, as a side note, things break more often on
Stream-8 then CentOS8. Maybe Stream only needs to mature, but it still 
a

different product.

My personal opinion is that RH created Stream to give cloud vendors a
place to experiment/repackage *before* adding that to the main RHEL
distro. Stream really does not seem targeted aSo, t small sites / 
"normal"

sysadmins, rather at large cloud vendors.

Which, again, is perfectly fine unless trying to disguise it as an
"almost-RHEL" distro.
Regards.




Sure .. so block kernels and build your own in that situation.  Or use
something else.  There are always edge cases.  There are millions of
CentOS users.  What percentage use 3rd party modules (other than nvidia
drivers).  There are some, and this would be a problem for those 
people.


So, IF another downstream distro works for you .. use it.  Or use 
Debian

or Ubuntu, or BSD.  Use Alma or Rocky Linux.  Buy RHEL.


As stated above, if this is the vision of Stream, fine. I am not arguing 
about the vision: while I don't like it, my opinion is irrelevant.


But disguising Stream as "almost-RH" (a mantra repeated many times both 
here and in various blog) is plain wrong, and I genuinely don't think it 
will be good for Stream.


And you know better than me that what you wrote above regarding the 
kernel is a double-edge sword: as you cope with security patches if the 
kernel is blocked? How do you cope with HP/DELL/Lenovo kmod needed to 
configure the RAID subsystem if using a rolling kernel? Did you notice 
that even RH-sponsored modules as kvdo were broken multiple times on 
Stream? If you are using VDO to access your storage and it suddenly is 
not usable anymore, how would you feel? What about ZFS on Linux users? 
Do you realize this drastically reduces Stream fitness to bare-metal 
install (one of the main CentOS usage was as hypervisor)?


The correct answer is to buy RH: fine. But do not let Stream touch 
anything which require a kABI compatible modules. As said above, the 
Stream move is squarely addresses *cloud* vendor requests and needs. 
Again, fine. But please leave apart the RH comparison, this is not going 
to help Stream.


Again, don't let me wrong: I wishes the best to Stream, and I will use 
it where appropriate. But "where" is much smaller today than yesterday. 
But this aside, I really thank you all CentOS maintainer for your 
monumental work, and I really hope Stream will be a success.


Regards.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-30 Thread Johnny Hughes

On 4/30/21 4:32 AM, Gionatan Danti wrote:
> Il 2021-04-30 06:55 Gordon Messmer ha scritto:
>> Why do you think that?  Are RHEL (and CentOS) point releases backward
>> compatible or not?  If you trust point releases to work, why would you
>> hesitate to trust a distribution that resembles an upcoming point
>> release?
> 
> Because it very often break kABI compatibility, with 3rd party module
> heavily affected.
> 
> Don't get me wrong: I understand that Stream is the way forward and that
> things are not going to change, and this is fine. But trying to ignore
> the key differences (shorter support, unknown upgrade from Stream-8 to
> Stream-9, broken kABI, etc) is not useful to anyone.
> 
> Stream is a *different* product, because is avoid (for the good or the
> bad) basically *all* things that make RHEL so special. And lets face it:
> kABI and long/quality support from RedHat are the only two things which
> make RHEL special. Stripping them from CentOS will produce a very
> different product. And, as a side note, things break more often on
> Stream-8 then CentOS8. Maybe Stream only needs to mature, but it still a
> different product.
> 
> My personal opinion is that RH created Stream to give cloud vendors a
> place to experiment/repackage *before* adding that to the main RHEL
> distro. Stream really does not seem targeted aSo, t small sites / "normal"
> sysadmins, rather at large cloud vendors.
> 
> Which, again, is perfectly fine unless trying to disguise it as an
> "almost-RHEL" distro.
> Regards.
> 


Sure .. so block kernels and build your own in that situation.  Or use
something else.  There are always edge cases.  There are millions of
CentOS users.  What percentage use 3rd party modules (other than nvidia
drivers).  There are some, and this would be a problem for those people.

So, IF another downstream distro works for you .. use it.  Or use Debian
or Ubuntu, or BSD.  Use Alma or Rocky Linux.  Buy RHEL.

Any number of solutions.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-30 Thread Valeri Galtsev



> On Apr 29, 2021, at 11:55 PM, Gordon Messmer  wrote:
> 
> On 4/29/21 8:51 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>> but in the second  case I can not put my reputation at stake and finish my 
>> phrase with "whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on CentOS". 

> Why do you think that?  Are RHEL (and CentOS) point releases backward 
> compatible or not?  If you trust point releases to work, why would you 
> hesitate to trust a distribution that resembles an upcoming point release?
> 

Why do, you, people use “creative editing”? Cite the whole piece I said, and 
place your question there, don’t tear single phrase out of context.

Valeri

> (And if you don't trust point releases, why would you use the OS at all?)
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-30 Thread Gionatan Danti


Il 2021-04-30 06:55 Gordon Messmer ha scritto:

Why do you think that?  Are RHEL (and CentOS) point releases backward
compatible or not?  If you trust point releases to work, why would you
hesitate to trust a distribution that resembles an upcoming point
release?


Because it very often break kABI compatibility, with 3rd party module 
heavily affected.


Don't get me wrong: I understand that Stream is the way forward and that 
things are not going to change, and this is fine. But trying to ignore 
the key differences (shorter support, unknown upgrade from Stream-8 to 
Stream-9, broken kABI, etc) is not useful to anyone.


Stream is a *different* product, because is avoid (for the good or the 
bad) basically *all* things that make RHEL so special. And lets face it: 
kABI and long/quality support from RedHat are the only two things which 
make RHEL special. Stripping them from CentOS will produce a very 
different product. And, as a side note, things break more often on 
Stream-8 then CentOS8. Maybe Stream only needs to mature, but it still a 
different product.


My personal opinion is that RH created Stream to give cloud vendors a 
place to experiment/repackage *before* adding that to the main RHEL 
distro. Stream really does not seem targeted at small sites / "normal" 
sysadmins, rather at large cloud vendors.


Which, again, is perfectly fine unless trying to disguise it as an 
"almost-RHEL" distro.

Regards.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-29 Thread Gordon Messmer


On 4/29/21 8:51 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
but in the second  case I can not put my reputation at stake and 
finish my phrase with "whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work 
on CentOS". 



Why do you think that?  Are RHEL (and CentOS) point releases backward 
compatible or not?  If you trust point releases to work, why would you 
hesitate to trust a distribution that resembles an upcoming point release?


(And if you don't trust point releases, why would you use the OS at all?)

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-29 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS


On 29.04.21 18:26, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/29/21 11:15 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:

On 29.04.21 17:34, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
to RHEL + a couple months.  ...


Maybe I am miss reading this sentence. Could you rephrase the "while
Stream will not ... anymore" please? Did something changed recently?


Stream as compared to CentOS Linux is not RHEL source code downstream is
what I should have said .. so what is released as CentOS (Steam now)
will no longer be a downstream build.

It will be released packages and very close to 8.4 content and right now.


Ah, okay. Thanks to clarifying it.

--
Leon










___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-29 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS


On 29.04.21 18:27, Valeri Galtsev wrote:



On 4/29/21 11:15 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:

On 29.04.21 17:34, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
to RHEL + a couple months.  ...


Maybe I am miss reading this sentence. Could you rephrase the "while 
Stream will not ... anymore" please? Did something changed recently?


I believe you are citing Johnny's write-up, not mine, so your question 
should be directed to Johnny. Your mailer somehow messed the citation 
depth to appear what Johnny said as if it was I who said it.


You are right, my hand coordination is not so good anymore. it cutted 
one line too few :-)


--
Leon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-29 Thread Pete Biggs

> 
> Quite agree. For me, not too knowledgeable in these things person, this 
> looks exactly what Fedoraa while ago  was: huge opening of RedHat to 
> wide open source community. Maybe Fedora didn't live up to the 
> expectation, then good luck to CentOS to live up to this expectation.

I don't think that is the case, quite the opposite. Fedora is way more
bleeding edge than RHEL/Stream, Fedora leads to a version that will
form the basis of the next major version of RHEL. My feeling (without
any real knowledge) is that the community involvement with Fedora was
seen as a benefit and now they are doing the same thing with RHEL -
that community input into RHEL is via Stream.

It has been said a few times that Stream is, in effect, the distro that
RH develops on: it used to be internal to RH, now it's not. It was RH's
own internal rebuild of RHEL. Opening up this to the outside world
allows other people (SIGs, spins etc.) to produce code on a level
playing field with RH developers.

P.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-29 Thread Valeri Galtsev




On 4/29/21 11:15 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:

On 29.04.21 17:34, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
to RHEL + a couple months.  ...


Maybe I am miss reading this sentence. Could you rephrase the "while 
Stream will not ... anymore" please? Did something changed recently?


I believe you are citing Johnny's write-up, not mine, so your question 
should be directed to Johnny. Your mailer somehow messed the citation 
depth to appear what Johnny said as if it was I who said it.


Valeri



Thanks,
Leon



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

On 4/29/21 11:15 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
> On 29.04.21 17:34, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>
>> As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
>> copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
>> to RHEL + a couple months.  ...
> 
> Maybe I am miss reading this sentence. Could you rephrase the "while
> Stream will not ... anymore" please? Did something changed recently?

Stream as compared to CentOS Linux is not RHEL source code downstream is
what I should have said .. so what is released as CentOS (Steam now)
will no longer be a downstream build.

It will be released packages and very close to 8.4 content and right now.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-29 Thread Valeri Galtsev




On 4/29/21 11:13 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/29/21 10:51 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:



On 4/29/21 10:34 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:




In other words, both of the following are true (IMHO):

A. Johnny's rigorous statement of what CentOS now is (or yours, it
doesn't actually matter who rigorously states it, but Johnny's seemed to
really cover all aspects - maybe it's just my reading though)

B. "CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise Linux" statement is
not true as far as new releases are concerned, i.e. not true to build
one's future on it



But as everyone is agreed it is counter productive to ponder these
things, I will end my side of it by reiterating:



As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
to RHEL + a couple months.  In fact at 8.4 release .. Stream is very
similar t0 RHEL 8.4 with NO WAITING.  CentOS Linux 8 getting upgraded to
the 8.4 source code, tested, isos created, etc .. will take a month or
so, Stream already has all that content in it RIGHT NOW.



Yes, this all sounds nice, but not good enough if you put yourself in my
shoes when I suggest my user:

A. "I am going to install CentOS which is binary replica of RedHat
Enterprise", so whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on CentOS
[implying my reputation behind merely an ability to install binary
packages and common sense of what binary files are there on both systems
in questions]

B. There is CentOS which is promised (I am borrowing your phrasing here)
"WILL BE extreamly similar to RHEL + a couple months"

but in the second  case I can not put my reputation at stake and finish
my phrase with "whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on CentOS".

So my latest phrasing to my users/machine owners - which I can put my
reputation behind - is:

I am going to install Debian for you, and as in the past whatever works
on some Linux I should be able to make work on your Debian machine.

The last I can put my reputation behind, and my user knows it might not
be as simple as installing binary packages known to work on RedHat
Enterprise, and knows there will be some effort/time on my side involved.


My apologies for breaking my promise to stop pondering the issue ;-(

Valeri


I think that is a positive , not a negative.




And as I have said several times .. if you (or anyone else) thinks
something works better or Stream does not work for you, that is fine.
Use what you want or like.

We make what we make. If one can use it, great.  If not, that's great as
well.

This is opening up the RHEL creation process in an unbelievable way to
community involvement.  I an proud to have been involved in mkae this
process so open.



Quite agree. For me, not too knowledgeable in these things person, this 
looks exactly what Fedoraa while ago  was: huge opening of RedHat to 
wide open source community. Maybe Fedora didn't live up to the 
expectation, then good luck to CentOS to live up to this expectation.


I hope, no one is offended by my - restricted - view of this, personal 
perception is just that and bound to be restricted to person's knowledge ;-)


Valeri


I think CentOS Stream is a much more community project that CentOS Linux
ever was.  I also think it is better for the open source community and
Linux distros in general.  For people whole don't think this, we can
agree to disagree.  it does not make either of us right or wrong.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-29 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS


On 29.04.21 17:34, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
to RHEL + a couple months.  ...


Maybe I am miss reading this sentence. Could you rephrase the "while 
Stream will not ... anymore" please? Did something changed recently?


Thanks,
Leon



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

On 4/29/21 10:51 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/29/21 10:34 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>
>>
>> 
>>> In other words, both of the following are true (IMHO):
>>>
>>> A. Johnny's rigorous statement of what CentOS now is (or yours, it
>>> doesn't actually matter who rigorously states it, but Johnny's seemed to
>>> really cover all aspects - maybe it's just my reading though)
>>>
>>> B. "CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise Linux" statement is
>>> not true as far as new releases are concerned, i.e. not true to build
>>> one's future on it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But as everyone is agreed it is counter productive to ponder these
>>> things, I will end my side of it by reiterating:
>>>
>>
>> As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
>> copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
>> to RHEL + a couple months.  In fact at 8.4 release .. Stream is very
>> similar t0 RHEL 8.4 with NO WAITING.  CentOS Linux 8 getting upgraded to
>> the 8.4 source code, tested, isos created, etc .. will take a month or
>> so, Stream already has all that content in it RIGHT NOW.
>>
> 
> Yes, this all sounds nice, but not good enough if you put yourself in my
> shoes when I suggest my user:
> 
> A. "I am going to install CentOS which is binary replica of RedHat
> Enterprise", so whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on CentOS
> [implying my reputation behind merely an ability to install binary
> packages and common sense of what binary files are there on both systems
> in questions]
> 
> B. There is CentOS which is promised (I am borrowing your phrasing here)
> "WILL BE extreamly similar to RHEL + a couple months"
> 
> but in the second  case I can not put my reputation at stake and finish
> my phrase with "whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on CentOS".
> 
> So my latest phrasing to my users/machine owners - which I can put my
> reputation behind - is:
> 
> I am going to install Debian for you, and as in the past whatever works
> on some Linux I should be able to make work on your Debian machine.
> 
> The last I can put my reputation behind, and my user knows it might not
> be as simple as installing binary packages known to work on RedHat
> Enterprise, and knows there will be some effort/time on my side involved.
> 
> 
> My apologies for breaking my promise to stop pondering the issue ;-(
> 
> Valeri
> 
>> I think that is a positive , not a negative.
>>
>> 

And as I have said several times .. if you (or anyone else) thinks
something works better or Stream does not work for you, that is fine.
Use what you want or like.

We make what we make. If one can use it, great.  If not, that's great as
well.

This is opening up the RHEL creation process in an unbelievable way to
community involvement.  I an proud to have been involved in mkae this
process so open.

I think CentOS Stream is a much more community project that CentOS Linux
ever was.  I also think it is better for the open source community and
Linux distros in general.  For people whole don't think this, we can
agree to disagree.  it does not make either of us right or wrong.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-29 Thread Valeri Galtsev





On 4/29/21 10:34 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:




In other words, both of the following are true (IMHO):

A. Johnny's rigorous statement of what CentOS now is (or yours, it
doesn't actually matter who rigorously states it, but Johnny's seemed to
really cover all aspects - maybe it's just my reading though)

B. "CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise Linux" statement is
not true as far as new releases are concerned, i.e. not true to build
one's future on it



But as everyone is agreed it is counter productive to ponder these
things, I will end my side of it by reiterating:



As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
to RHEL + a couple months.  In fact at 8.4 release .. Stream is very
similar t0 RHEL 8.4 with NO WAITING.  CentOS Linux 8 getting upgraded to
the 8.4 source code, tested, isos created, etc .. will take a month or
so, Stream already has all that content in it RIGHT NOW.



Yes, this all sounds nice, but not good enough if you put yourself in my 
shoes when I suggest my user:


A. "I am going to install CentOS which is binary replica of RedHat 
Enterprise", so whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on CentOS 
[implying my reputation behind merely an ability to install binary 
packages and common sense of what binary files are there on both systems 
in questions]


B. There is CentOS which is promised (I am borrowing your phrasing here) 
"WILL BE extreamly similar to RHEL + a couple months"


but in the second  case I can not put my reputation at stake and finish 
my phrase with "whatever works on RedHat Enterprise will work on CentOS".


So my latest phrasing to my users/machine owners - which I can put my 
reputation behind - is:


I am going to install Debian for you, and as in the past whatever works 
on some Linux I should be able to make work on your Debian machine.


The last I can put my reputation behind, and my user knows it might not 
be as simple as installing binary packages known to work on RedHat 
Enterprise, and knows there will be some effort/time on my side involved.



My apologies for breaking my promise to stop pondering the issue ;-(

Valeri


I think that is a positive , not a negative.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

On 4/28/21 6:01 PM, Phil Perry wrote:
> On 28/04/2021 23:28, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>>> On Apr 27, 2021, at 11:32, Johnny Hughes  wrote:
>>>
>>> You would be hard pressed to find many FUNCTIONAL differences between
>>> Stream and CentOS Linux // just as you would be hard pressed to find
>>> many differences between RHEL 8.2 and RHEL 8.3, for example.
>>>
>>> Are there some differences?  Sure.
>>>
>>> If people don't want stream, then by all means , use something else.
>>
>> This is true within the narrow scope of just CentOS/RHEL, but if, for
>> example, you rely on ELrepo for kmods for hardware that Red Hat
>> dropped support for, you’ll be sadly unable to use those kmods on
>> Stream (elrepo isn’t supporting Stream[1]).
>>
>> There will also be inconsistencies with other third party repos and
>> commercial software that focus exclusively on RHEL when Stream gets
>> major version bumps ahead of RHEL. Certainly it will be an opportunity
>> for those vendors to get their product working on Stream, so they’ll
>> be prepared for the next RHEL release.
>>
>> But this is why people are calling it a beta test for RHEL. Yes, Steam
>> running with only their core repos and software from within CentOS is
>> tested and QA’d. But if you want to use Stream in a larger software
>> context, be prepared for missing support and unexpected breakages. The
>> only use I will consider Stream for will be as a test for upcoming
>> RHEL releases, not as something I will ever want actual users to
>> touch. (And maybe that’s ok)
>>
>> 1.
>> http://elrepoproject.blogspot.com/2021/01/elrepo-and-centos-stream.html?m=1
>>
>>
> 
> The other concern for me is security. I've not had time to track CVE's
> in detail, but even a cursory look shows there are CVE's which have been
> fixed in RHEL8.3 kernel releases which are still not fixed in the latest
> Stream release [1] (which if truly upstream of RHEL should presumably
> get the fixes first before they are backported to the RHEL point
> releases), and others where the fixes eventually appeared weeks or
> months later [2]. I know CentOS makes no claims as to security fixes
> etc, but at least with RHEL->CentOS Linux rebuild, one could reasonably
> expect that when a security issue was fixed in RHEL, CentOS would have
> the same release and fix out the door within 24-48h. With Stream we are
> seeing delays of months for security fixes in the kernel that have been
> released in RHEL. The only time the Stream kernel is comparable to the
> RHEL kernel from a security fix viewpoint is once every six months on
> the day the next point release fork occurs. This all indicates Stream is
> not of production quality and hence why people associate / use the term
> beta software.
> 
> [1] CVE-2020-25705
> [2] CVE-2020-29661
> 

CentOS NEVER made security fix claims :)

The kernel dies currently lag behind slightly .. but this is something
that will be fixed when the full process is implemented for stream.

Right now, because of secure boot signing not being automated completely
.. and because of different keys for CentOS and RHEL .. the kernel
process is manual, not automated.

But, this process is being worked on.  How many people actually really
update their kernels and reboot on the day those updates come out .. or
the 1 or 2 days later that CentOS currently takes to build them?

But yes, one does need to look for how to fix those issues.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

On 4/27/21 11:45 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

> In other words, both of the following are true (IMHO):
> 
> A. Johnny's rigorous statement of what CentOS now is (or yours, it
> doesn't actually matter who rigorously states it, but Johnny's seemed to
> really cover all aspects - maybe it's just my reading though)
> 
> B. "CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise Linux" statement is
> not true as far as new releases are concerned, i.e. not true to build
> one's future on it
> 
> 
> 
> But as everyone is agreed it is counter productive to ponder these
> things, I will end my side of it by reiterating:
> 

As was stated at Red hat summit though .. while Stream will not be a
copy of the downstream RHEL code anymore .. it WILL BE extreamly similar
to RHEL + a couple months.  In fact at 8.4 release .. Stream is very
similar t0 RHEL 8.4 with NO WAITING.  CentOS Linux 8 getting upgraded to
the 8.4 source code, tested, isos created, etc .. will take a month or
so, Stream already has all that content in it RIGHT NOW.

I think that is a positive , not a negative.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread Phil Perry


On 28/04/2021 23:28, Jonathan Billings wrote:

On Apr 27, 2021, at 11:32, Johnny Hughes  wrote:

You would be hard pressed to find many FUNCTIONAL differences between
Stream and CentOS Linux // just as you would be hard pressed to find
many differences between RHEL 8.2 and RHEL 8.3, for example.

Are there some differences?  Sure.

If people don't want stream, then by all means , use something else.


This is true within the narrow scope of just CentOS/RHEL, but if, for example, 
you rely on ELrepo for kmods for hardware that Red Hat dropped support for, 
you’ll be sadly unable to use those kmods on Stream (elrepo isn’t supporting 
Stream[1]).

There will also be inconsistencies with other third party repos and commercial 
software that focus exclusively on RHEL when Stream gets major version bumps 
ahead of RHEL. Certainly it will be an opportunity for those vendors to get 
their product working on Stream, so they’ll be prepared for the next RHEL 
release.

But this is why people are calling it a beta test for RHEL. Yes, Steam running 
with only their core repos and software from within CentOS is tested and QA’d. 
But if you want to use Stream in a larger software context, be prepared for 
missing support and unexpected breakages. The only use I will consider Stream 
for will be as a test for upcoming RHEL releases, not as something I will ever 
want actual users to touch. (And maybe that’s ok)

1. http://elrepoproject.blogspot.com/2021/01/elrepo-and-centos-stream.html?m=1



The other concern for me is security. I've not had time to track CVE's 
in detail, but even a cursory look shows there are CVE's which have been 
fixed in RHEL8.3 kernel releases which are still not fixed in the latest 
Stream release [1] (which if truly upstream of RHEL should presumably 
get the fixes first before they are backported to the RHEL point 
releases), and others where the fixes eventually appeared weeks or 
months later [2]. I know CentOS makes no claims as to security fixes 
etc, but at least with RHEL->CentOS Linux rebuild, one could reasonably 
expect that when a security issue was fixed in RHEL, CentOS would have 
the same release and fix out the door within 24-48h. With Stream we are 
seeing delays of months for security fixes in the kernel that have been 
released in RHEL. The only time the Stream kernel is comparable to the 
RHEL kernel from a security fix viewpoint is once every six months on 
the day the next point release fork occurs. This all indicates Stream is 
not of production quality and hence why people associate / use the term 
beta software.


[1] CVE-2020-25705
[2] CVE-2020-29661

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread Jonathan Billings

> On Apr 27, 2021, at 11:32, Johnny Hughes  wrote:
> 
> You would be hard pressed to find many FUNCTIONAL differences between
> Stream and CentOS Linux // just as you would be hard pressed to find
> many differences between RHEL 8.2 and RHEL 8.3, for example.
> 
> Are there some differences?  Sure.
> 
> If people don't want stream, then by all means , use something else.

This is true within the narrow scope of just CentOS/RHEL, but if, for example, 
you rely on ELrepo for kmods for hardware that Red Hat dropped support for, 
you’ll be sadly unable to use those kmods on Stream (elrepo isn’t supporting 
Stream[1]). 

There will also be inconsistencies with other third party repos and commercial 
software that focus exclusively on RHEL when Stream gets major version bumps 
ahead of RHEL. Certainly it will be an opportunity for those vendors to get 
their product working on Stream, so they’ll be prepared for the next RHEL 
release. 

But this is why people are calling it a beta test for RHEL. Yes, Steam running 
with only their core repos and software from within CentOS is tested and QA’d. 
But if you want to use Stream in a larger software context, be prepared for 
missing support and unexpected breakages. The only use I will consider Stream 
for will be as a test for upcoming RHEL releases, not as something I will ever 
want actual users to touch. (And maybe that’s ok)

1. http://elrepoproject.blogspot.com/2021/01/elrepo-and-centos-stream.html?m=1

--
Jonathan Billings
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread R C

I think the budget needed would be in the millions, 10's of millions...  
that is hard to do with a gofundme page or a bake sale on an annual 
basis.  if it only was a 100k or couple of 100k,  IBM and others 
wouldn't care to keep it going I think, besides funding, there were 
organizational reasons too I believe.


On 4/28/21 7:36 AM, Christopher Wensink wrote:
Speaking of financing, it's common for non-profits such as churches 
and other organizations to have an annual budget review that is put 
together to lay out the budget, and expenses to see how each cost is 
broken down.


Is there an equivalent budget page that annual review of expenses for 
CentOS / Stream?


If there isn't then perhaps it would be beneficial to have such a 
page, something that lists out the line by line expenses, so that 
everyone is aware of how expensive that maintaining a distro truly is.


Once those numbers are known then perhaps a fundraising campaign with 
a visual like a thermometer type of graphic on the right side of the 
page saying our budget each year is 100k (or whatever it is, I'm 
making up a number) and our fundraising so far is 12k for the year, etc.


Thoughts?

Chris

On 4/28/2021 8:28 AM, R C wrote:
you think you can fund something like that with a bake sale or so?, 
maintaining a separate distro for the same thing is VERY expensive


On 4/28/21 2:08 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:

On 28/4/2021 10:35 π.μ., Nikolaos Milas wrote:

All that, in turn, are very much dependent on community involvement 
and project management & financing.


By the way, I think that CentOS, before it was "absorbed" by Redhat, 
could/might have addressed the community for fund raising, rather 
than abandoning the project to RH, which, as others have mentioned, 
was an unmistakable sign of upcoming CentOS EOL as we had come to 
know it.


If the financing need was communicated correctly, I am very 
confident that financing would have been secured, e.g. by using a 
public fund raising platform, due to CentOS huge install base and 
community.


Any of those current (or future) projects that might prove 
successful enough to become CentOS successor (as a RHEL binary twin, 
and not as Stream), should use the community financing model, in 
order to avoid CentOS fate.


My 0.01$ :)

Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos




___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread Nikolaos Milas


On 28/4/2021 4:28 μ.μ., R C wrote:

you think you can fund something like that with a bake sale or so?, 
maintaining a separate distro for the same thing is VERY expensive


I agree, of course, yet it seems that those who decide to maintain a 
separate distro are decided to do so and obviously are confident that 
they can handle funding somehow.


Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread Christopher Wensink

Speaking of financing, it's common for non-profits such as churches and 
other organizations to have an annual budget review that is put together 
to lay out the budget, and expenses to see how each cost is broken down.


Is there an equivalent budget page that annual review of expenses for 
CentOS / Stream?


If there isn't then perhaps it would be beneficial to have such a page, 
something that lists out the line by line expenses, so that everyone is 
aware of how expensive that maintaining a distro truly is.


Once those numbers are known then perhaps a fundraising campaign with a 
visual like a thermometer type of graphic on the right side of the page 
saying our budget each year is 100k (or whatever it is, I'm making up a 
number) and our fundraising so far is 12k for the year, etc.


Thoughts?

Chris

On 4/28/2021 8:28 AM, R C wrote:
you think you can fund something like that with a bake sale or so?, 
maintaining a separate distro for the same thing is VERY expensive


On 4/28/21 2:08 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:

On 28/4/2021 10:35 π.μ., Nikolaos Milas wrote:

All that, in turn, are very much dependent on community involvement 
and project management & financing.


By the way, I think that CentOS, before it was "absorbed" by Redhat, 
could/might have addressed the community for fund raising, rather 
than abandoning the project to RH, which, as others have mentioned, 
was an unmistakable sign of upcoming CentOS EOL as we had come to 
know it.


If the financing need was communicated correctly, I am very confident 
that financing would have been secured, e.g. by using a public fund 
raising platform, due to CentOS huge install base and community.


Any of those current (or future) projects that might prove successful 
enough to become CentOS successor (as a RHEL binary twin, and not as 
Stream), should use the community financing model, in order to avoid 
CentOS fate.


My 0.01$ :)

Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--
Christopher Wensink
IS Administrator
Five Star Plastics, Inc
1339 Continental Drive
Eau Claire, WI 54701
Office:  715-831-1682
Mobile:  715-563-3112
Fax:  715-831-6075
cwens...@five-star-plastics.com
www.five-star-plastics.com


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread R C

you think you can fund something like that with a bake sale or so?, 
maintaining a separate distro for the same thing is VERY expensive


On 4/28/21 2:08 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:

On 28/4/2021 10:35 π.μ., Nikolaos Milas wrote:

All that, in turn, are very much dependent on community involvement 
and project management & financing.


By the way, I think that CentOS, before it was "absorbed" by Redhat, 
could/might have addressed the community for fund raising, rather than 
abandoning the project to RH, which, as others have mentioned, was an 
unmistakable sign of upcoming CentOS EOL as we had come to know it.


If the financing need was communicated correctly, I am very confident 
that financing would have been secured, e.g. by using a public fund 
raising platform, due to CentOS huge install base and community.


Any of those current (or future) projects that might prove successful 
enough to become CentOS successor (as a RHEL binary twin, and not as 
Stream), should use the community financing model, in order to avoid 
CentOS fate.


My 0.01$ :)

Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread Stephen John Smoogen

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 04:09, Nikolaos Milas  wrote:

> On 28/4/2021 10:35 π.μ., Nikolaos Milas wrote:
>
> > All that, in turn, are very much dependent on community involvement
> > and project management & financing.
>
> By the way, I think that CentOS, before it was "absorbed" by Redhat,
> could/might have addressed the community for fund raising, rather than
> abandoning the project to RH, which, as others have mentioned, was an
> unmistakable sign of upcoming CentOS EOL as we had come to know it.
>
>
So CentOS when it was brought into Red Hat was not a company or
organization. It was much more like some sort of libertarian anarchy where
a group of people came together in an IRC channel and did what they wanted
to get an OS out. Many of these people were consultants who had daily
clients and did this as a night gig to help those clients and others but it
wasn't a single company which could accept funding. Things like the domain
name, trademark, etc were in the name of one person due to a past
historical problem.

That problem was that CentOS did once have an organization to collect
funds, but it had been mismanaged. This caused all kinds of problems with
the community and groups which had given funding  and there were legal and
tax problems due to it. In those cases, it is better to 'walk' away from
the organization as resetting it up usually triggers audits and additional
paperwork to show the people involved now are no way the same ones before.
So instead things were set up with most of the items owned by individuals.


> If the financing need was communicated correctly, I am very confident
> that financing would have been secured, e.g. by using a public fund
> raising platform, due to CentOS huge install base and community.
>
> Any of those current (or future) projects that might prove successful
> enough to become CentOS successor (as a RHEL binary twin, and not as
> Stream), should use the community financing model, in order to avoid
> CentOS fate.
>
> My 0.01$ :)
>
> Nick
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread Nikolaos Milas


On 28/4/2021 10:35 π.μ., Nikolaos Milas wrote:

All that, in turn, are very much dependent on community involvement 
and project management & financing.


By the way, I think that CentOS, before it was "absorbed" by Redhat, 
could/might have addressed the community for fund raising, rather than 
abandoning the project to RH, which, as others have mentioned, was an 
unmistakable sign of upcoming CentOS EOL as we had come to know it.


If the financing need was communicated correctly, I am very confident 
that financing would have been secured, e.g. by using a public fund 
raising platform, due to CentOS huge install base and community.


Any of those current (or future) projects that might prove successful 
enough to become CentOS successor (as a RHEL binary twin, and not as 
Stream), should use the community financing model, in order to avoid 
CentOS fate.


My 0.01$ :)

Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-28 Thread Nikolaos Milas


On 28/4/2021 1:23 π.μ., Gionatan Danti wrote:

If the Springdale release is a 100% RH clone, why do different teams 
(Alma and Rocky) are trying to re-package the same 100% 
binary-compatible RH clone?


Simply because each one of these projects obviously wants to remain 
independent from the others, otherwise it would request to join forces 
with one of them.


Why they want to remain independent? Due to their vision and internal 
structure. Check each project's details.


Each project's future will be judged by team responsiveness, prompt 
release availability, product reliability and eventually user adoption.


All that, in turn, are very much dependent on community involvement and 
project management & financing.


Cheers,
Nick

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-27 Thread Gionatan Danti


Il 2021-04-27 15:05 J Martin Rushton via CentOS ha scritto:

The traditional rebuild of RHEL will continue under other guises.
There has been a long standing release at Springdale.  Since RH's
announcement Cloud have produced the Alma release.  There is also a
new project called Rocky that hasn't yet released a full version but
is working on it.


Hi, I am not sure this is the place to ask, but lets try...
If the Springdale release is a 100% RH clone, why do different teams 
(Alma and Rocky) are trying to re-package the same 100% 
binary-compatible RH clone?


Thanks.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-27 Thread Matthew Miller

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:24:40AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Rawhide is a development (beta?) release. 

I would love to get to the point where I feel comfortable saying that Fedora
Rawhide is a perpetual beta. The current status is more like "perpetual
alpha" — in fact, Fedora dropped our "alpha releases" in favor of applying
the same criteria to Rawhide continuously, so it's not just an analogy. But
we do branch from there for a stabilization period, from which we have beta
and then final releases of Fedora Linux.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-27 Thread Chris Adams

Once upon a time, Carlos Oliva  said:
> Thank you for your response Martin. We should probably consider
> moving to the alternatives that you mentioned or Ubuntu. Centos was
> no longer a Community effort after RH was bought by a propriatory
> company.

The vast majority of open source software is developed by companies like
Red Hat/IBM (IBM was a significant Linux contributor long before they
bought Red Hat; the original SCO lawsuit was about code IBM contributed
to the Linux kernel).  That's not just true of Linux; a lot of FreeBSD
development is done by a few companies (sometimes imperfectly, as seen
with the VPN mess just before FreeBSD 13 release).

-- 
Chris Adams 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-27 Thread Gordon Messmer


On 4/27/21 6:36 AM, Carlos Oliva wrote:
I have heard that Stream is beta releases of RH -- rather distressing. 
Is this a proper characterization? 



No, I don't think so.  I think a better characterization would be:

Rawhide is a development (beta?) release.  Fedora is a stable release.  
CentOS Stream is a stable LTS release.  RHEL is a stable LTS release 
with semantic versioning of the distribution as a whole (and point 
releases which are themselves branches of the main release).


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-27 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS


On 27.04.21 16:04, Carlos Oliva wrote:
Thank you for your response Pete. I prefer to avoid working under the 
unbrela of propriatory companies.



That is a conflicting statement. What would you then use these days 
without having a "entity" to back the service up? Anyway its OT ...


Maybe this is of interest:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/centos-is-gone-but-rhel-is-now-free-for-up-to-16-production-servers/

Leon



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?





On 4/27/21 11:24 AM, Pete Biggs wrote:






My comment was just to balance Pete's as the truth between Pete's
statement and Carlos feelings is where I'm sure my comment pointed...



Out of interest, do you think my statement is factually incorrect? If
so, in what way?



I guess I have to hide behind my "imperfect command of English language" ;-)

Though it most likely is factually correct, while being an opposing to 
Carlos's statement of feelings, it did ask for a comment why Carlos's 
feeling have the grounds to be such, and and thus it warrantied in me my 
addition of comment.


In other words, both of the following are true (IMHO):

A. Johnny's rigorous statement of what CentOS now is (or yours, it 
doesn't actually matter who rigorously states it, but Johnny's seemed to 
really cover all aspects - maybe it's just my reading though)


B. "CentOS is binary replica of RedHat Enterprise Linux" statement is 
not true as far as new releases are concerned, i.e. not true to build 
one's future on it




But as everyone is agreed it is counter productive to ponder these 
things, I will end my side of it by reiterating:



As always: thanks to the whole CentOS team, everyone who worked on this 
project during last two decades to make it as great as we know and used 
it - as "binary replica of RedHat Enterprise Linux". Your effort can not 
be overestimated, as well as the way to say it: a "binary replica of 
RedHat Enterprise Linux" was always quenching any doubts in everyone I 
had to talk to - both technical people and non-technical alike. (Not 
anymore, sigh).


Valeri


P.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-27 Thread Pete Biggs


> > 
> 
> My comment was just to balance Pete's as the truth between Pete's 
> statement and Carlos feelings is where I'm sure my comment pointed... 
> 

Out of interest, do you think my statement is factually incorrect? If
so, in what way?

P.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?




On 4/27/21 10:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 4/27/21 9:29 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:



On 4/27/21 8:55 AM, Pete Biggs wrote:

On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 09:36 -0400, Carlos Oliva wrote:

Thank you for your response Rich. I have heard that Stream is beta
releases of RH -- rather distressing. Is this a proper characterization?


You heard wrong.

Stream is effectively a rolling early release of the next point release
of RHEL. The packages in stream are fully tested and have gone through
QA.  They are not beta releases.



With all due respect, - and avoiding the names to not scratch against
"release,..." definitions, he is more correct in his feelings (that what
you say) which I would formulate as "stream users are sort of Guinea
pigs for RedHat releases".

And mind that I have no emotions about it as my servers are FreeBSD for
over a decade. And new number crunchers and workstations going Debian
since CentOS ceased to be RedHat Enterprise binary replica was such a
minor change...

Just my $0.02.

Valeri


The disadvantage of Stream is that it doesn't have the full 10 year
support of RHEL and doesn't have the full binary compatibility to RHEL.



You would be hard pressed to find many FUNCTIONAL differences between
Stream and CentOS Linux // just as you would be hard pressed to find
many differences between RHEL 8.2 and RHEL 8.3, for example.

Are there some differences?  Sure.

If people don't want stream, then by all means , use something else.

CentOS 7 Linux will be around until the RHEL 7 EOL .. CentOS 8 Linux
will be around until 31 Dec 2021 and CentOS Stream will be around for %
years after the RHEL 8 Release.  CentOS Stream 9 will be around until
for 5 years after the RHEL 9 release.



Thanks Johnny for calmly stating what is what. This exactly is where all 
statements about CentOS should end.



It is what it is .. all the negative comments are not going to change it.



My comment was just to balance Pete's as the truth between Pete's 
statement and Carlos feelings is where I'm sure my comment pointed... No 
negative intended, just stating of the facts as they are perceived by 
some (many? - not many if to discount these who fled totally).


And as always: thank you personally and the whole CentOS team, everyone 
who worked on this project during last two decades to make it as great 
as we know and used it - as "binary replica of RedHat Enterprise Linux". 
Your effort can not be overestimated, as well as the way to say it: a 
"binary replica of RedHat Enterprise Linux" was always quenching any 
doubts in everyone I had to talk to - both technical people and 
non-technical ones. (Not anymore, sigh).


Valeri


For people who can not accept this and live with it .. life is too short
for so much negative emotions.  Go places and use things that make you
happy.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?

2021-04-27 Thread Johnny Hughes

On 4/27/21 9:29 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/27/21 8:55 AM, Pete Biggs wrote:
>> On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 09:36 -0400, Carlos Oliva wrote:
>>> Thank you for your response Rich. I have heard that Stream is beta
>>> releases of RH -- rather distressing. Is this a proper characterization?
>>>
>> You heard wrong.
>>
>> Stream is effectively a rolling early release of the next point release
>> of RHEL. The packages in stream are fully tested and have gone through
>> QA.  They are not beta releases.
>>
> 
> With all due respect, - and avoiding the names to not scratch against
> "release,..." definitions, he is more correct in his feelings (that what
> you say) which I would formulate as "stream users are sort of Guinea
> pigs for RedHat releases".
> 
> And mind that I have no emotions about it as my servers are FreeBSD for
> over a decade. And new number crunchers and workstations going Debian
> since CentOS ceased to be RedHat Enterprise binary replica was such a
> minor change...
> 
> Just my $0.02.
> 
> Valeri
> 
>> The disadvantage of Stream is that it doesn't have the full 10 year
>> support of RHEL and doesn't have the full binary compatibility to RHEL.
>>

You would be hard pressed to find many FUNCTIONAL differences between
Stream and CentOS Linux // just as you would be hard pressed to find
many differences between RHEL 8.2 and RHEL 8.3, for example.

Are there some differences?  Sure.

If people don't want stream, then by all means , use something else.

CentOS 7 Linux will be around until the RHEL 7 EOL .. CentOS 8 Linux
will be around until 31 Dec 2021 and CentOS Stream will be around for %
years after the RHEL 8 Release.  CentOS Stream 9 will be around until
for 5 years after the RHEL 9 release.

It is what it is .. all the negative comments are not going to change it.

For people who can not accept this and live with it .. life is too short
for so much negative emotions.  Go places and use things that make you
happy.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?





On 4/27/21 8:55 AM, Pete Biggs wrote:

On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 09:36 -0400, Carlos Oliva wrote:

Thank you for your response Rich. I have heard that Stream is beta
releases of RH -- rather distressing. Is this a proper characterization?


You heard wrong.

Stream is effectively a rolling early release of the next point release
of RHEL. The packages in stream are fully tested and have gone through
QA.  They are not beta releases.



With all due respect, - and avoiding the names to not scratch against 
"release,..." definitions, he is more correct in his feelings (that what 
you say) which I would formulate as "stream users are sort of Guinea 
pigs for RedHat releases".


And mind that I have no emotions about it as my servers are FreeBSD for 
over a decade. And new number crunchers and workstations going Debian 
since CentOS ceased to be RedHat Enterprise binary replica was such a 
minor change...


Just my $0.02.

Valeri


The disadvantage of Stream is that it doesn't have the full 10 year
support of RHEL and doesn't have the full binary compatibility to RHEL.

P.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--

Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos versions in the future?