The source trees in a form suitable for modification (and pull requests) are here: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms
It's not a totally different distro, it's a different variant of the same distro. Back when I was on the release team I would create builds, release them in CentOS Stream 8, then a few months later release them in…
CentOS Stream has major versions and EOL dates, and thus is not a rolling release. It functions as the RHEL major version branch and follows the RHEL compatibility rules, so it's the same major version stability as…
It warms my heart to see someone else recognize this. The bug-for-bug model that classic CentOS Linux followed was fundamentally broken. Sure there were lots of consumers, but without the ability to fix bugs or accept…
Mesa is kept current enough in CentOS that a backport isn't necessary. It's currently at version 25.0.7, same as Fedora 41.
Each version of CentOS Stream is maintained for about 5.5 years, plenty to qualify as an LTS and significantly longer than Fedora (the base for non-LTS Bluefin).
> Heaven forbid you run RHEL on RHEL in containers, you’re gonna get fleeced. You can run unlimited RHEL containers on a subscribed RHEL system. It's even set up where if you run a UBI container (a redistributable…
> But you skip over that. It's pretty common to reply to specific aspects of a comment. That's what the markdown quote notation is for (even if it doesn't render properly on this site). > I think as a compressed…
> Around the same time, Red Hat discontinued its free Red Hat Linux and replaced it with the paid-for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the free, unsupported Fedora Core. This is a common misconception. RHEL and RHL…
Then why does this article give "special thanks" to Fedora, but not Red Hat? Or point out the fact that the vast majority of the Fedora RISC-V porting work is being done by Red Hat employees?
Ubuntu Pro and RHEL are both 10 years for their standard lifecycle, with optional add-ons to go longer. Ubuntu's is called "Legacy Support" to get an extra 2 years, RHEL's is called "Extended Life-cycle Support" to get…
> Kind of like how RHEL used to still provide contributions to CentOS for a long time (although I think that ended at some point too). RHEL contributes to CentOS now more than ever. CentOS started outside of Red Hat…
DNF didn't start as a competitive fork of Yum, it started as the Python 3 rewrite of Yum from the same developers. It was really just Yum version 4, using a different name so it could be installed in parallel with Yum…
This blog post uses a really weak report as the source for its information. The survey used for the report only got 433 responses. Based on the percentages given in the report, RHEL-related distro usage breaks down like…
That doesn't show any actual FIPS certificate numbers. Neither does the top link. If CIQ has any FIPS certificates I can't image why they wouldn't list them prominently to remove any doubt. That's what Red Hat does.…
The planning to swap the RHEL/CentOS relationship (i.e. CentOS Stream) long predated even the "intent to acquire" announcement from IBM, and of course the actual acquisition as well.
CentOS is not a rolling release. It has major versions and EOL dates.
So you say "it would be easy and seamless", but did you ever actually do it and upgrade to RHEL? Because most people throw that out as a supposed sales pipeline that was lost, but the real life metrics indicate that…
You created an alt account with "centos" in the name just to complain about CentOS. Yeah, it's the hatters that are the weird ones here.
If you're running cutting edge datacenter hardware, CentOS is a better fit now than it ever has been before. It will be the first to get support for new hardware within a major version, ahead of RHEL and all it's…
It's the same major version, so it's extremely compatible. Plus if you run into something that doesn't work the same, you just discovered what's going to break for your workload on your RHEL system when the next minor…
People that actually care about the distro being sustainable are quite happy with the changes. Sorry you don't get it.
To call it "completely different" is false. They are built differently, but the end result is still 90-95% the same software versions (because it has to be as the major version of RHEL). In fact, the way it is built…
For testing environments Red Hat will literally give them free RHEL. Problem solved.
Red Hat pays more people to work on open source than any other company I'm aware of. I am one of these people. I challenge you to find a single open source project included in a Red Hat product that doesn't contain…
The source trees in a form suitable for modification (and pull requests) are here: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms
It's not a totally different distro, it's a different variant of the same distro. Back when I was on the release team I would create builds, release them in CentOS Stream 8, then a few months later release them in…
CentOS Stream has major versions and EOL dates, and thus is not a rolling release. It functions as the RHEL major version branch and follows the RHEL compatibility rules, so it's the same major version stability as…
It warms my heart to see someone else recognize this. The bug-for-bug model that classic CentOS Linux followed was fundamentally broken. Sure there were lots of consumers, but without the ability to fix bugs or accept…
Mesa is kept current enough in CentOS that a backport isn't necessary. It's currently at version 25.0.7, same as Fedora 41.
Each version of CentOS Stream is maintained for about 5.5 years, plenty to qualify as an LTS and significantly longer than Fedora (the base for non-LTS Bluefin).
> Heaven forbid you run RHEL on RHEL in containers, you’re gonna get fleeced. You can run unlimited RHEL containers on a subscribed RHEL system. It's even set up where if you run a UBI container (a redistributable…
> But you skip over that. It's pretty common to reply to specific aspects of a comment. That's what the markdown quote notation is for (even if it doesn't render properly on this site). > I think as a compressed…
> Around the same time, Red Hat discontinued its free Red Hat Linux and replaced it with the paid-for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the free, unsupported Fedora Core. This is a common misconception. RHEL and RHL…
Then why does this article give "special thanks" to Fedora, but not Red Hat? Or point out the fact that the vast majority of the Fedora RISC-V porting work is being done by Red Hat employees?
Ubuntu Pro and RHEL are both 10 years for their standard lifecycle, with optional add-ons to go longer. Ubuntu's is called "Legacy Support" to get an extra 2 years, RHEL's is called "Extended Life-cycle Support" to get…
> Kind of like how RHEL used to still provide contributions to CentOS for a long time (although I think that ended at some point too). RHEL contributes to CentOS now more than ever. CentOS started outside of Red Hat…
DNF didn't start as a competitive fork of Yum, it started as the Python 3 rewrite of Yum from the same developers. It was really just Yum version 4, using a different name so it could be installed in parallel with Yum…
This blog post uses a really weak report as the source for its information. The survey used for the report only got 433 responses. Based on the percentages given in the report, RHEL-related distro usage breaks down like…
That doesn't show any actual FIPS certificate numbers. Neither does the top link. If CIQ has any FIPS certificates I can't image why they wouldn't list them prominently to remove any doubt. That's what Red Hat does.…
The planning to swap the RHEL/CentOS relationship (i.e. CentOS Stream) long predated even the "intent to acquire" announcement from IBM, and of course the actual acquisition as well.
CentOS is not a rolling release. It has major versions and EOL dates.
So you say "it would be easy and seamless", but did you ever actually do it and upgrade to RHEL? Because most people throw that out as a supposed sales pipeline that was lost, but the real life metrics indicate that…
You created an alt account with "centos" in the name just to complain about CentOS. Yeah, it's the hatters that are the weird ones here.
If you're running cutting edge datacenter hardware, CentOS is a better fit now than it ever has been before. It will be the first to get support for new hardware within a major version, ahead of RHEL and all it's…
It's the same major version, so it's extremely compatible. Plus if you run into something that doesn't work the same, you just discovered what's going to break for your workload on your RHEL system when the next minor…
People that actually care about the distro being sustainable are quite happy with the changes. Sorry you don't get it.
To call it "completely different" is false. They are built differently, but the end result is still 90-95% the same software versions (because it has to be as the major version of RHEL). In fact, the way it is built…
For testing environments Red Hat will literally give them free RHEL. Problem solved.
Red Hat pays more people to work on open source than any other company I'm aware of. I am one of these people. I challenge you to find a single open source project included in a Red Hat product that doesn't contain…