I respectfully disagree.  Some users can take a "wait and see attitude" 
-- let us see how distro X (for any X) that is "new" or "developing" 
evolves. It may, or may not, meet our needs.  Others, of which the HEP 
community (as with Fermilab and CERN) are prime examples, have to plan 
ahead and cannot wait and see -- if distro X that appears that it will 
meet needs in fact does not, there will be insufficient time to choose 
another course.  One way to look into the "crystal ball" as it were is 
to observe current developments to limit the "hindsight is 20/20" 
result.  I have commented upon current developments that I have read 
about and attempted to bring these to developments to the attention of 
the SL community -- much of which reads this list.  For the enthusiast 
or amateur, a failure of Fedora or Ubuntu non-LTS, etc., may only mean 
inconvenience -- just as the MS Win "blue screen of death" seems to mean 
to many.  For those who need a stable "secure" environment or platform, 
and who must plan ahead, such "inconveniences" may be much more 
consequential.  It also is possible that mention of such developments 
here may cause changes in distro X.  The IBM acquisition of RH and the 
end of CentOS as a no-fee executable installable EL shows that such 
concerns do not always influence a distro, just as the HEP community no 
longer had the disposable resources to produce SL 8, etc.  (In the USA, 
fundamental science that does not have a clear path to for-profit 
private sector eventual deliverables continues to suffer; thus, the 
Arecibo observatory is gone.)

On the contrary, I have had a number of correspondents express great 
confidence that Rocky EL (or whatever name the distro ultimately is 
titled) will be a fully reliable replica of production supported RHEL. 
I hope they are correct; but if not, those who "gambled" upon it will 
have to face the same situation as is now before the SL community -- how 
to proceed. Hopefully, ELrepo and EPEL, etc., will continue to support 
porting needed drivers and utilities to EL 8, 9, ... , and thus Rocky EL.

On 12/31/20 7:21 AM, Jon Pruente wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 11:06 PM Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>     Beef:  Slang.       a complaint.
>           an argument or dispute.
> 
>     I do not have a complaint, argument, or dispute with Rocky EL or any
>     other distro, enthusiast, "enterprise", or supported for fee.  The
>     issues are suitability, currency, hardening, and support mechanisms.  I
>     can elaborate on any of these if there is interest.  It is difficult,
>     but not impossible, to have a distro that does not have computer
>     science
>     and engineering professionals (not in the sense of necessarily using
>     this as in the sense of a significant source of gainful employment, nor
>     in the sense of formal academic diplomata -- Heaviside had no such
>     diplomata, but in the sense of knowledge, understanding, and skills, of
>     which Heaviside had sufficient in all three of these areas) doing the
>     implementation that is suitable for "hardened" production use,
>     including
>     converting a distribution source into a functioning alternately badged
>     but otherwise identical "executable" distribution.
> 
> 
> You do have a beef. You post item after item "exposing" how Rocky is not 
> suitable for prime professional use, while ignoring that the project is 
> still developing. You post complaint after complaint about how it's a 
> volunteer run affair while you can only stomach using something that 
> people are paid specifically to do. You have the take that volunteerism 
> is bad for serious use, yet the whole CentOS debacle is rooted around 
> paid Red Hat employees scuttling the distro. Stop being pedantic and 
> just own up to the behavior we can see in your posts.