@DustinB3403 said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

@stacksofplates said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

@DustinB3403 said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

@stacksofplates anyone or their cousin can register as a developer and use the system for production.

Here's my personal account.

Yes I also have a developer account. The 16 production workloads are for the cloud subscription. As the article mentioned.

I think you're believing that this is tied to Redhat's Cloud offering, it's not. It's tied to your account with redhat, for sure. (So you can download it). But you can download and run this anywhere.

At least that's how I'm reading this.

You're correct. I just read that and came to post. The wording in the other article was confusing and made it seem like they needed to be deployed on a supported cloud provider.

However, I still don't think it's worth going through the trouble to download from Red Hat vs just downloading Oracle and not needing to do anything.

One thing I wonder is if you have a paid subscription for something like Gluster, Ceph, Satellite (not that you would for 16 servers but I mean any subscription) do you now have to pay for the host it's on? Do the terms of any of those pieces of software require the systems they're on to have a valid license?

Just thinking about that took more time than downloading the Oracle ISO.

@DustinB3403 said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

While the changes don't take effect until Feb 1, I see nothing that indicates a cost is going to be applied to it.

No one said anything about cost.

@DustinB3403 said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

@stacksofplates anyone or their cousin can register as a developer and use the system for production.

Here's my personal account.

Yes I also have a developer account. The 16 production workloads are for the cloud subscription. As the article mentioned.

@JaredBusch said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

@stacksofplates said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

@DustinB3403 said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

@VoIP_n00b said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

Interesting Development:

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

See that should've been an initial statement from RHEL.

"We're ending the CentOS line, but are offering 16 production servers for free as a part of this change"

The way this was handled was still horribly performed and has likely killed the RHEL userbase off from trusting anything from RHEL/IBM.

16 servers? What good is that though? Just use Oracle and you have no limit. No matter how you slice it IBM has ruined Red Hat as most people predicted.

For most SMB, that use CentOS in house, it is likely more than enough.

I have a client with 6 internal Linux systems, Proxy server, Nextcloud, Salt master (testing still, need ot get back to that), file server, jump box, and Email relay. If you add their phone system hosted on Vultr, then they have 7.

I'm assuming they aren't on a supported cloud environment. You still have to follow their licensing limitations vs just using Oracle. This whole thing is only going to make Oracle money.

@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

@IRJ said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

The point of bring in someone like myself, @JaredBusch

If you wanted to do that properly you should've added the

Jackass...

I can ship you a Snickers if you need it, Betty White.

@DustinB3403 said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

@VoIP_n00b said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:

Interesting Development:

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

See that should've been an initial statement from RHEL.

"We're ending the CentOS line, but are offering 16 production servers for free as a part of this change"

The way this was handled was still horribly performed and has likely killed the RHEL userbase off from trusting anything from RHEL/IBM.

16 servers? What good is that though? Just use Oracle and you have no limit. No matter how you slice it IBM has ruined Red Hat as most people predicted.

@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

Well the math isn't just math, its emotion that you have to try and take out of the equation. Then you can have a costs discussion.

Again, this is their fault. If taxes go up, do they get emotional and try to fight it? No they pass the cost on to the customer like every other business. Same in this scenario. If you have to subscribe now and it costs more, the costs get passed on. It's no one's fault but their own.

@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

@stacksofplates said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

tough choices because of the past

It's not a tough choice. You either want the updates and features or not. If you do, you pay for a subscription or you use an open source version that gets constant updates. It's not tough at all. They might not like it, but it's not tough.

You may not see it as a tough choice, but it is rarely an easy one.

Changing platforms from Microsoft Excel to LibreOffice for example might include weeks or months of restructuring and rebuilding to use the different platform.

Right, so it makes fiscal sense to pay for O365. It's not tough.

@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

tough choices because of the past

It's not a tough choice. You either want the updates and features or not. If you do, you pay for a subscription or you use an open source version that gets constant updates. It's not tough at all. They might not like it, but it's not tough.

@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:

You're assuming that there was a plethora of choices in cases like this. For a very long time there was 1 "choice" Microsoft Office.

That's simply not true. LibreOffice, OpenOffice, WPS Office, Google Docs, Lotus SmartSuite, Lotus Symphony, IBM Works, Calligra, WordPerfect Office, etc. Many had to have existed around the time you're speaking of or even MS Office wouldn't have existed.

Times change, the business needs to adapt. That means adapting mindset like using proper RBAC. Them not wanting to pay for the yearly fee is inconsequential. That's the cost, end of story. If they don't like it, they're stuck with their decision or they migrate to something else. There's not much to argue.