Red Hat supports the option of CentOS and argues that 95% of existing usage scenarios can be handled by the Stream variant

Karsten Wade (Karsten Wade), Red Hat’s senior community architect and CentOS board member, defended the decision to stifle CentOS Linux and move to CentOS Stream. He said the two ventures are’ antagonistic’ and Stream is a satisfactory solution in most situations.

CentOS Linux is the downstream version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and CentOS Stream, which was released in September 2019, is the upstream version (unless problems are found).

All of the CentOS versions are free, and CentOS Linux’s success is understandable. It integrates RHEL’s reliability with free connectivity. For eg, CentOS’s website share is 18.5 percent, according to W3Techs figures, while Red Hat’s share is 1.5 percent . Red Hat revealed earlier this month that it would phase out CentOS Linux and move to Stream.

Wade clarified the need for CentOS Stream, thinking that this is a way to make contributing to RHEL simpler for the group. He also said: “As a project, if you try to do two opposing things at the same time, it means that you can’t do both things well.” He indicated that this was the explanation for giving up CentOS Linux. He confirmed that this decision was promoted by Red Hat, and Red Hat “proposed its own plan to the CentOS project”, but he said that “the CentOS board of directors signed the plan.”

Wade admitted that the absence of CentOS Linux caused a “availability gap”, but he said that he is confident that Stream can cover “95 percent (or about) of current user work scenarios.” At the same time, he also mentioned one of the Linux engineering director Stef Walter. This article describes Stream as RHEL with a continuous delivery model and points out.

“The whole point of continuous delivery is to make each version as stable as the previous version.” Wade also said that more solutions will be provided by Red Hat, which probably means that RHEL licensing will be more affordable in some scenarios.

Worried that it’s easy to do well doing two things at the same time. Is it the reason to cancel CentOS Linux, or want to sell more RHEL licenses? Regarding Wade’s statement, the community does not believe that the two are opposed.

People are particularly dissatisfied with the reduction in support for CentOS 8. “The reason people complain is because you suddenly wanted to kill CentOS 8, which was released last year, and promised binary compatibility with RHEL 8 and security updates until 2029.” Someone commented on Wade’s post.

A complex balance of business and community considerations is involved in maintaining an open source project like RHEL. Red Hat’s success depends on its capacity to handle this. Red Hat is built on the work provided by others for free; similarly, those who build a free distribution from the work of Red Hat engineers are also based on this investment in commercial support in a sense. The difficulty for Red Hat is that although from a commercial point of view, supporting a project that creates free alternatives to its main commercial product may be hurt, the risk is that without CentOS Linux, users will also switch to RHEL alternatives.

“I have more than 300,000 CentOS nodes that need long-term support because it is impossible to turn over quickly.

I still have 154,000 RHEL nodes. I now have to migrate 454,000 nodes to Ubuntu, because Red Hat just made a The most stupid decision of the company, other than getting IBM to acquire them…nothing is more terrible than losing millions in revenue from a customer,” said a commenter on the post.