Just a couple thoughts on framing this "development":

Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> Translation -- as a for-profit vendor, IBM does not want to subsidize
> a competitor to RHEL that is without fee.

I see this move in even worse light.  Previously there was mutual
benefit and trust between RH and CentOS/SL communities.  The collective
worked to make the shared system better, RH made money from those that
need their hands held, while CentOS/SL community did not need to pay for
what they did not need.

What RH/IBM have done is to turn that relationship into an *exploitive*
one.  It has not just cut off the community from the "freeness" (as in
beerness).  Rather, the community (whatever will remain of it) now
*works for free* for RH/IBM as beta testers.

Now, for some, I think this new arrangement will be just fine.  The
"stream" nature of the CentOS new world order may actually be welcome
for use some cases.  Eg, I use and love Debian "testing" on my laptop.
I can imagine those deep in the RH world and who do not already use
Fedora on their laptops or workstations will enjoy CentOS Stream (I hear
them crying now, "there are tens of us!").

For others, notably "grid" and other clusters and the sea of individual
servers that can't afford RHEL but require stability, a new solution
must be found.

I've always considered Debian far more of a "scientific Linux" than SL.
It has the stability and security fix support needed for large stable
clusters and services.  A switch of course will take effort.  Lots of
retraining (as someone who hates using RH, I can imagine there is a
symmetry in how many RH admins/users think of Debian).  Never the less,
this development has made me hopeful that the crisis will bring about a
better, Debian-oriented scientific computing future.

> I suspect that I made the "correct" planning decision to switch to
> Ubuntu LTS (until such time as Canonical follows the RH IBM path
> ...).

Canonical worries me (looking at you, "snaps") but in some sense they
already have their beneficial exploitation of Debian (which has a decent
level of mutuality) and that puts them kind of in their place.

I can not imagine it would ever be worth it for Canonical to abandon
Debian as their upstream feed.  If they took a model of charging for
Ubuntu builds (ala RHEL), it is relatively easy for users large and
small to move to pure Debian or to one of the many Ubuntu rebuilds.  For
Canonical to "pull a RedHat" they'd need to "aquihire" the community
leaders.  I don't think it is technically possible for Debian to "sell
out" like CentOS leadership.  They are too numerous and too goverened by
strong rules and practices that encode a moral community oriented
philosophy.  Nor would Debian give up due to funding as SL had to do.
Debian actually has a surplus of cash.  Likewise, the number of Ubuntu
re-builds is too large for Canonical to buy out all of them.

So, Canonical are, I think, "stuck".  But, in a good way.  They are not
able to turn the tables on their community in the manner that RH/IBM
just did.


Well, famous last words, never underestimate the creative amorality of
corporations, etc....

-Brett.