[xor-eax-eax]

Untrue, it's purist startup people and some ISVs who believe that Alma or Rocky are the somehow "better".

Meta runs 10M+ CentOS 9 Stream boxes migrating to 10 eventually.

Cent has shorter security update availability latency and they're shipped more consistently. The benefit with Rocky and Alma is double the lifecycle time and arguably better governance, unfortunately though they're both tiny operations that suffer from a narrow bus factor, are always playing catch-up, drifting away from RHEL compatibility, and are the definition of fragmentation.

If you need RHEL-ish for servers, use CentOS Stream. It's not great for desktop. Use Fedora or something more LTS for that.

[bigstrat2003]

> Untrue, it's purist startup people and some ISVs who believe that Alma or Rocky are the somehow "better".

It's anyone who appreciates the value of stability in server software. In my personal opinion, that value is quite high and far too quickly cast aside by others in the industry.

[bjoli]

I am one of those people who agree with you. On my main family computer we run Alma Linux with flatpaks for the main accounts.

I use guix to get up to date tools for development stuff.

(On my laptop I run aeon desktop and guix. I really do think that model is the future. Right now I am hoping to be able to run aeon desktop but with the opensuse slowroll packages which would give me all the benefits of aeon but without the constant updates).

[DoctorOW]

I think it's unsurprising that the company that coined "Move fast and break things" was fine using Stream.

[josefx]

> drifting away from RHEL compatibility

Any source for that claim? I am testing software on Rocky and never got complaints from users that run it on RHEL.