Putting aside what Red Hat wants, it's still open source. Why couldn't a new project replace centOS as the free alternative to RHEL?
CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
131–140 of 642 posts
Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://yum.oracle.com/oracle-linux-isos.html Disclaimer: not affiliated with Oracle in any way. This is just the closest thing to a plain RHEL8 clone I know of, other than CentOS8.
I work for Oracle on their cloud platform (including reasonably closely with the Oracle Linux team, as my team is responsible for the main platform images). Speaking entirely for myself, opinions my own, may not reflect my employer etc. etc: I came in to this job expecting OL to just be a CentOS clone, and not really expecting much from the kernel they ship with it. It is both a CentOS clone, and a bunch more. Oracle…
So is it a drop-in replacement for CentOS 8.x without any nonsense? I.e. same packages, compatibility with upstream, etc.
Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#133I've had a feeling, at least since the IBM purchase of Redhat, that the days of using Centos as a free replacement of RHEL with all the security updates and patches for absolutely free, are coming to an end.
You'll either be forced to buy licenses or use a far less stable and secure version of stream. Or, of course, you can rent VMs with maintained distros from Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc. on their cloud platforms.
IBM bought Redhat for a reason, and if history is any guide, they'll begin aggressively pursuing large companies, governmental, educational, etc. users of Centos and push them to buy support licenses of Redhat.
Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#134I remember setting up and building a 16node cent OS cluster in my undergrad for a special big data paper back in 2012,
so sad to see this...long live forks
Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#135From their FAQ [0]: Q4: How will CVEs be handled in CentOS Stream? A: Security issues will be updated in CentOS Stream after they are solved in the current RHEL release. So a "front runner" for bugs but not security issues. [0]: https://centos.org/distro-faq/
It's essentially no different from how things currently are. RedHat releases updates, CentOS group picks those up and builds CentOS packages from them. They usually lag a day or two. They really lagged on the PLATYPUS CPU vulnerability for CentOS 7, because they were dealing with a backlog from the 7.9 bump. Took them several days to get the patches out.
I guess the question will be how fast CentOS Stream releases fixes compared to Debian Stable/Testing and Ubuntu LTS.
Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#136So basically, instead of CentOS being as stable as RHEL, they're positioning it in between Fedora and RHEL stability. Basically the Debian Testing branch for RHEL. This is just a rebranding move to push businesses that were using CentOS to actually buy a RHEL license, lol.
Wait, RedHat owns CentOS?
I always considered CentOS to be (roughly) RHEL without the support.
RHEL is nearly identical in practical use because they use the same libraries and tooling for the most part. I guess I've always just assumed CentOS was "Free RedHat".
Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
RedHat provides developer subscriptions to their products: https://developers.redhat.com/articles/getting-red-hat-devel...
And this will be expanding to cover more use cases. See https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-centos-stream-updates#Q10 : _In the first half of 2021, we will be introducing low- or no-cost programs for a variety of use cases, including options for open source projects and communities, partner ecosystems and an expansion of the use cases of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Developer subscription to better serve the needs of…
And these licenses and subscriptions come and go at the whim of the corporations that own them. Nobody informed would base their open source project/community/ecosystem on something like this, unless they want to be left out in the cold when the plug gets pulled in the future.
Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#138> CentOS Linux 8, as a rebuild of RHEL 8, will end at the end of 2021 Does this mean that CentOS 8 is EOL come 2021? Weren't maintenance updates meant to go to 2029? What about everybody who built their product on the assumption that there would be a stable CentOS until then?
> What about everybody who built their product on the assumption that there would be a stable CentOS until then?
1. They can start paying RedHat
2. They can hire/delegate someone to maintain patches for them
3. They can migrate to something else ;)
Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#139Re: CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream
#140This is awful. It's proof of the downsides to the IBM acquisition, which I think we all knew was coming. Imagine if you were running a business, and deployed CentOS 8 based on the 10 year lifespan promise. You're totally screwed now, and Red Hat knows it. Why on earth didn't they make this switch starting with CentOS 9???? Let's not sugar coat this. They've betrayed their users. I personally run a CentOS 7 server (as…
Wonder if the web hosting industry will rebel and build another RHEL clone project that just gets the 10-year supported patches. Red Hat still has to release the patches, right?
A really big chunk of the world's traditionally shared hosted websites run on CentOS, because most commercial control panel packages and hosting automation systems are built for that. A rebadged CentOS is also AWS's default distro.
Wonder of the hosting industry, AWS included, will build a new stable clone of RHEL 8's upstream security patches. There are some big companies, like GoDaddy in there, whose business models are unlikely to accommodate for RHEL support subscriptions.
This is truly a bummer, and if someone doesn't pick up the pieces and continue offer RHEL rebranded, there's no(?) open sauce operating system with a decade-long support lifecycle. I wonder if this might cause an increase in unpatched servers and appliances when the alternatives offer five years at best.