From Reddit:
Just handed Microsoft the best talking point ever. Imagine giving up the war in order to win a few minor licensing battles. Microsoft has been telling companies this would happen with open source forever, even the biggest companies. Now no one can argue with them. Amazing.
This commenter on the article said it best:
This is not a suicide, this is a murder done by corporate pigs from IBM
Why is this bad? Pardon my ignorance.
CentOS was the non-subscription version of RedHat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and was massively popular as a server operating system. Now that CentOS is killing its stable version, no sane person would keep using it on their servers, so they’ve thrown away most of their market share, likely in a bid to get people to use RHEL.
My understand is that the non stable branch can’t be too bad but if people want surity of stability I guess they’ll migrate to Debian or something.
For production servers you should basically never use non-stable operating systems.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Doesn’t the change just mean it’s going to be a rolling release? As long as they push quality updates, I can’t see why it would be unstable. In fact, wouldn’t security vulnerabilities get patched sooner?
I don’t know about how CentOS handled security patches for its stable releases, but Debian does backports of security updates (AFAIK there can be issues but it works fine for the important packages). The main problem is that rolling release can package conflicts and subtle issues, and depending on what branch the actual packages are on, they can be unstable or have many bugs (Nvidia drivers were the bame of my existance both when I ran Arch/Manjaro and OpenSUSE Tumbleweed). I’m not a sysadmin, but everywhere I read not to use rolling release for a production server.
deleted by creator
What happened to Fedora?
Fedora is alive and well. It suits better as a workstation or testing server operating system, using it on production isn’t a good idea.
Rhel unlike fedora is very stable and I believe it has support for over 8yrs which is a lot. Rhel unstable however doesn’t have a support time and can be unpredictable. It isn’t as unstable as fedora but is compared to Rhel Stable.
So the fact that cent os which was previously based on Rhel stable is a huge issue. Because lots of production servers rely on it and don’t want to purchase the incredibly expensive Rhel stable license.
That .ales sense. Thanks.
Yeah, I don’t think that CentOS Stream thing itself is necessarily a bad idea, but they could’ve called that “RHEL Beta” and not cannibalized a project, which’s whole shtick has always been that it is just RHEL without support contract.
Well, at least the CentOS-type projects don’t rely on IBM to be best friends with them and the community can just put out another such effort.
And that’s a big yikes from me. So now everyone that wants to upgrade their CentOS machines will be “upgrading” to a less stable, beta version of RedHat? How about no.
