| > I fail to see what separates Alma from CentOS Stream at this point I believe that AlmaLinux's approach is in-line with Red Hat's vision for downstream OS-es. Rocky's is not. I think a potential benefit to aligning with Red Hat's approach is that both AlmaLinux and Red Hat will be contributing fixes, improvements, etc. to CentOS Stream -- and any other OS-es that base off of CentOS Stream. And, nothing is preventing AlmaLinux from snapshotting their own stable releases -- which allows the AlmaLinux team to test and release stable releases to their users. > the Hostility of IBM and Redhat here has lead me to transition 100% of the CentOS Server I managed to Ubuntu I completely agree with this perspective. This is why Rocky's decisions really baffle me: why use an upstream OS like RHEL if you absolutely do not align with its objectives? I feel like it would have made much more sense for Rocky to make Fedora their upstream instead of implementing workarounds to copy RHEL. > I will never use RHEL or RHEL based distribution again at this point so I really do not care about the future of Alma or Rocky either I also do not use any Fedora based distribution (typically just running NixOS or Ubuntu), however, I find that I do care about these shifts because Red Hat has tremendous impact on the trajectory of most Linux distributions. And the downstream OS-es' responses have been interesting to observe to me. :) |
As far as I can tell this is logically incorrect CentOS/Alma are upstream not downstream and red hat's vision of downstream OSes is they don't exist because that takes a nickel out of IBM's pocket.