If we decide we can’t afford 100% RHEL licensing, Alma was my choice, but I see so many choosing Rocky, and I’m genuinely curious why people are doing that.
The primary purpose of CentOS Stream is this: to allow a real community to be built around CentOS, where partners and users can contribute. With CentOS if you encountered a bug your only option was to file it against RHEL (not CentOS), wait for someone at Red Hat to get to it, then wait for RHEL to pick it up and release it. You would be very lucky for that whole process to complete within 6 months and if you're not a customer you probably won't be able to test a hotfix on your own systems.
Whereas with Stream: partners and downstream developers can file issues directly against Stream, and then contribute fixes directly to Stream, where they get QA'd in public and are added directly to the future release of RHEL. So Oracle Linux, Rocky, Alma and anyone else can actually participate in the process and contribute back instead of having to just take whatever RH throws over the wall.
However, the messaging and timelines around all of this were handled... not well, and some of the acrimony around that is reasonable even if the changes make sense.
In any case, I get the justification for CentOS stream, but changing CentOS 8's EoL from 2029, to Jan 1st 2020 ... after it shipped is definitely a good way to alienate your customers and community.
Fedora moves fast enough that by the time a RHEL release comes out, Fedora has moved far enough to not be very relevant as an upstream.
Even if Stream had versions, it’s still only tracking about a minor release ahead of RHEL. If you trusted RHEL’s QE process before, there’s little reason to stop trusting it. I really don’t think much has changed in terms of usage outside of some infrequently used software, but you have to account for that when managing them on a RHEL system, too, so I still don’t really understand the problem.
We have a couple thousand Alma 8 in production and it’s been smooth sailing.