There are several issues with IBM RHEL clones, ultimately controlled by 
what is termed the Nazgul below (presumably a reference to the fictional 
entities:  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Nazg-25C3-25BBl&d=DwIDaQ&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A&m=nTjqdNvLHGUa2BQ5UsMUyvKD_BqcIQgVCd1DVvdlzDg&s=6U4Ha5dld83V2VaQLvx2ZWBL-I2zQZdYozUJ6C87tl0&e=  ).  For better or 
worse, but so far "for better", I have switched to Ubuntu LTS current 
(20.04.2 as this is written), not Debian.  Ubuntu, as with the old RHEL, 
has internal "professional" support and development; LTS is used in the 
"real" world as an "enterprise" distro.

My reason -- and after much internal discussion and debate -- is that a 
10 year lifecycle is only as meaningful as IBM will allow the reality of 
this statement.  As new hardware, architecture, and software (including 
"systems" applications) emerge, without "updates" and "backports", only 
"obsolete" systems will be supported from the actual IBM RH sources (not 
executables, and not supported) that need to be built.  Updates for 
current hardware, etc., will need to come from ElRepo, Epel, etc., 
unless (almost) all EL clone distros come together to do what IBM RH may 
not be doing under the IBM Nazgul.

Is IBM trustworthy?  As a for-profit corporation, absolutely -- to make 
whatever financial achievements it plans, subject only to regulations. 
Is it trustworthy to keep promises, such as CentOS? -- the track record 
of IBM (or many other such vendors) does not inspire confidence in 
"trustworthiness".  If the CentOS situation significantly cost revenue 
or market share, then indeed IBM RH would be "trustworthy".  Will the 
CentOS RHEL situation cost IBM market share?  Probably not -- the CERN 
Fermilab HEP community represents not that much market share.


On 2/3/21 5:03 PM, Vinícius Ferrão wrote:
> I will not move to Debian.
> 
> RHEL clones have 10 years of lifecycle, AlmaLinux just dropped it’s beta today. So there’s no reason to move to Debian or Ubuntu.
> 
>> On 3 Feb 2021, at 21:52, Keith Lofstrom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Having been burned by IBM before, and with no guarantee
>> that "Long-term Redhat for individuals" will survive IBM's
>> legal department into the far future --- I'm thinking about
>> abandoning 25 years of Redhat experience and switching to
>> Debian, while my aging brain can still handle change.
>>
>> Debian - yikes!
>>
>> Thinking about - not decided, though I halted work on a
>> server upgrade to CentOS 8 while I wait for the dust to
>> settle.  Rocky in April is another option, but if IBM
>> goes after them, they will be a wet spot on the floor.
>>
>> So - who else is contemplating a move to Debian?
>>
>> I very much hope to stay connected to the "scientific"
>> aspect of our community.  Making big changes together
>> with other science computationalists would be easier.
>>
>> Easier still would be staying with an RPM distro, IF it
>> remained useful and legal and affordable for our kind of
>> computing.  An e-commerce and corporate infrastructure
>> focused distro, not so much.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> P.S. I remember the Red Hat booth at OSCON 2014, after the
>> Borging of CentOS, where I was assured that they would
>> support CentOS into the distant future.  That "assurance"
>> survived the IBM acquisition by 18 months.  What changes
>> will 5 more years of IBM (and their formidable lega
>> department, called the Nazgul by other technology lawyers)
>> result in?
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Keith Lofstrom          [log in to unmask]
>