[ehayes]

Am I the only one who doesn't get the "risk using CentOS Stream" stuff? Isn't it going to be slightly-less stable RHEL?

I actually worked at Red Hat a few years back and almost all work was released upstream-first. The one time I fixed something security-related, the fix was still made upstream first, but just embargoed until the fix was made and released for downstream versions. If I recall correctly, we pushed the upstream fix the day the downstream patch was public.

Now I run CentOS in production for a small web app. I get wanting a decade of support for your OS, but at least for cloud-based web apps that seems pretty unnecessary.

What am I missing here?

[dvfjsdhgfv]

It's not about risk; many vendors produce software for a specific version of RHEL - we want to use exactly that version, but we don't want to pay through the nose for the support we don't need.

[rhodysurf]

Exactly this. You can produce software that is compatible with a RHEL version without paying for RHEL if you’re not even using it

[yjftsjthsd-h]

FWIW, redhat does offer developer licenses of RHEL specifically for this kind of thing. Maybe not quite as nice, but probably workable.

[rhodysurf]

I worked in defense for a while. Every DoD contractor is locked to RHEL version that their DoD targets use as end users. But they don’t need to pay for RHEL support currently because they all just use CentOS instead. This forces all of those companies to finally pay up, which they will def not be happy about.

[abruzzi]

This genuinely surprises me. When I moved into enterprise 15 years ago, I was more inclined to use free things and piece everything together myself. This quickly overwhelmed me, and I learned the golden rule of enterprise--nothing without a support contract.