@maxamillion since some people react by comparing it in an alarmist way to Rawhide, I'd say Tumbleweed (rolling release) is a closer description. A much more stable Tumbleweed given the slow-moving nature
@michel_slm I think comparing to Tumbleweed is similar-ish but a bit of a misnomer becuase Stream isn't a true rolling release. Stream will still have a version 8 and version 9 and you won't just roll into 9 automatically. Each version of Stream will have roughly a 5 year lifecycle and then you have to upgrade (but there is an upgrade path and a planned supported methodology similar to how Fedora handles it).
@michel_slm @maxamillion I think one of the major problems people see is that they signed up for a non-rolling-release distribution for the next 10 years and now got cut out of that, for reasons that seem to be a very one sided benefit for RHEL.
And given that CentOS itself was basically famous to be a RHEL clone, explicitly not, RHEL Beta, seems to upset people, including me.
Even worse is that Streams was introduced with the commitment to the regular releases just a year ago.
@michel_slm @maxamillion And something that really hit me recently was that it appears that "servers in production environments" don't seem to be addressed at all in any of the recent announcements and statements around Streams. It's all about Testing and developing for RHEL. I even heard people talking about CentOS on desktops and laptops more than on servers. That's just completely bizarre.
@sheogorath @michel_slm it's not about "testing RHEL" more so about opening the development to the broader open source contributor community, which is the first time ever. They are also bringing all the CI processes from inside Red Hat to outside the firewall. Server usage is fine, I don't understand why folks seem to think you can't run Stream on servers. It's barely different. Stream has had 46 package updates in the last 3 months. It's still an EL distro, it's tested and going to move slow.
@michel_slm @maxamillion This talk showcasts pretty much what I mean by "not being the best example for an everyday company". This talk is given by a team that manages centos in Facebook. in the majority of organisations you don't have that. You have a hand full of people that mange the entire fleet of an organisation, if at all.
From my perspective it's a feature of CentOS that it sits behind, not in front of RHEL. Streams won't be the end of the world, but also not an argument for CentOS.
@michel_slm @maxamillion Facebook isn't your everyday company. The amount of staff and especially IT related staff is very different from the organisations I see using CentOS. Therefore I don't think that makes the best example.
And about RHEL tiers, if possible I would avoid RHEL. Not because it's bad, but because subscription-manager causes a lot of unnecessary trouble in my daily operation. And I don't think people using CentOS now suddenly need RH support. So why the trouble?
@sheogorath @michel_slm I think some of that's fair. The entire concept of the distribution is changing but this shouldn't be considered "RHEL Beta" any more or less than Fedora should (which, it shouldn't) and the thing that ultimately gets released as CentOS Stream (and updates) is absolutely going to get tested/QA'd before going out. This isn't going to be the wild west. Stream has been around for over a year and it's been fine.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.