If you destroy something then create something entirely different with the same name then the fact remains that you still destroyed the original thing. That's not dramatising or hyperbole.
If you destroy something then create something entirely different with the same name then the fact remains that you still destroyed the original thing. That's not dramatising or hyperbole.
Which is exactly what we want.
> So, yes, it is different but, increasingly, most of the software you use will be using this type of model. Certainly SaaSs don't let you choose a dot release for the most part.
Not all of us are happy with having to follow the update treadmill. Software is a tool, like an electric drill; one doesn't update their electric drill every day, otherwise we would be wasting all our time updating and dealing with the fallout of updates, instead of drilling holes in wood. If you develop (or do anything) on top of software, you want a stable base, instead of one shifting all the time; one builds castles in rock, not in quicksand.
The nice thing about open source--rather than cloud SaaSs--is that there are more backward-looking options from a variety of sources. I'd also encourage users who need or feel they need that sort of option to contribute to such efforts so that they're sustainable.
You could be right. But "we got rid of this thing (and gave something totally different the same name) because that's not the direction the software is heading" would be a different comment from the one I replied to, which was "this thing still exists, honest!"
No, this is totally wrong (which is why I'm trying to correct it). CentOS will be where RHEL used to be. It is trading places with RHEL. It's not "the opposite end of the scale in terms of stability." CentOS will be roughly a single minor point release ahead of RHEL.
Please read more about because that is super misleading and others are seeing things like this and propagating them: https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop...
Regardless of what your blog post says, RHEL was not a beta for old CentOS. Old CentOS was a rebuild/copy of RHEL, bugs and all included. RHEL will not be a copy/rebuild CentOS Stream, so it’s not a reversal of roles.
Using outdated packages doesn’t make a distribution stable. It’s stable when its combination of packages and configuration has already been tried by a bunch of people, and confirmed to work, or has had its issues thoroughly documented with effective workarounds.
Where am I wrong? Can you point out my error and make a case for your position? What makes you think RHEL is still "stable" but suddenly a distro a tiny bit ahead is now wildly unstable?
CentOS was binary compatible because the point was expecting it to be the same environment for application layer and testing. The change being described throws all that in the trash and its intellectually dishonest at best or just obtuse ignorance at worst to "misunderstand" the difference here, and how big of a change switching to a "Beta" effect release schedule is when there was an existing 10 year commitment to release schedule that was also thrown in the trash.
Don't try to insult the userbase by then gaslighting after the fact.