RE: question regarding the future

[n0rg]

It will be interesting to see how Red Hat defines itself in the future since 
being snagged up by IBM.  /Roy

-Original Message-
From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov 
 On Behalf Of John Holmes
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 10:09
To: scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: question regarding the future

Try Springdale Linux (formerly PUIAS), it was started long before CentOS.
PU-IAS = Princeton University - Institute for Advanced Study 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__springdale.math.ias.edu_=DwIDaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=wP65fR-SDNTSPXnXaiYwSUdkmZtorgLfyxLkJX73d1U=GCfR5v9kjH_NGH0--yMHNpy_l708MANUmXBGhyDJIBw=

On 27/04/2019 14:15, Maarten wrote:
> Hello fellow SL users,
> 
> I having been using SL for a while now, after the CentOS project 
> became part of Redhat I was glad that I was using SL because I would 
> think that CentOS would become a middle testing ground for Redhat to 
> test new things, getting the idea SL would stay closer to the source 
> since it just being another clone. Now that it has been announced that 
> there will be no SL8, what's the best clone to switch to after EOL of 
> SL6 and SL7.
> Even  though
> Redhat says that  CentOS will never be used as a testing ground or 
> switch how they are doing things, I do not believe what they say now 
> will be the same in the future.

Re: question regarding the future

[Tom H]

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:59 PM Mark Rousell  wrote:
> On 03/05/2019 08:19, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> Red hat can limit access to its source RPMs to its paying customers
>> and prevent free rebuilds
>
> Although Red Hat have an extensive end user licence agreement, it is
> generally accepted that no terms in such an EULA can extinguish the
> software licence terms under which copyright holders have chosen to
> distribute heir software. In this case that is the GPL and both Red
> Hat and myself are bound by it.

If you violate the RH EULA, it can and will prevent you from accessing
RPMs and SRPMs to upgrade your installation.

But, as i said earlier, I doubt that RH'll go down that route because
it gains from having a free version.

I suspect that it's more likely that IBM decides that it's wasteful to
have a team re-brand RHEL and rebuild it, and chooses to follow the
Ubuntu model whereby RHEL would be free, with support licenses
available.

Re: question regarding the future

[Mark Rousell]

On 03/05/2019 17:51, Olek Proskurowski wrote:
Unless IBM decides to charge "modest" download fee.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gnu.org_licenses_gpl-2Dfaq.en.html-23DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee=DwIGaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=Z__OEEHQf3OcXZmcy1LsYtDdPjrt5r3uCreTxxqownw=1GuSaqR3SwwBTXPzoFLxhfhHB3nG2lN9SCtSyrTGMBg=

Well, even then, I don't think it would invalidate the principle that the GPL 
(and other open source licence) source could be redistributed (and modified) 
freely once initially downloaded by someone, anyone, with legitimate access to 
it.

Re: question regarding the future

[Mark Rousell]

On 03/05/2019 08:19, Tom H wrote:

Red hat can limit access to its source RPMs to its paying customers
and prevent free rebuilds

Whilst it is true that Red Hat could legitimately limit access to its source 
code to authorised users of its software, I don't think this could or would 
prevent free rebuilds from occurring.

For example, I have a free of charge dev licence for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 
(anyone can sign up to one of these at present). Most of this code is licensed 
under GPL (v2 mostly I think) and, as per that licence, RHEL have to give me 
access to the source code. Indeed, I can easily download two ISOs full of 
source RPMs from Red Hat's website.

Although Red Hat have an extensive end user licence agreement, it is generally 
accepted that no terms in such an EULA can extinguish the software licence 
terms under which copyright holders have chosen to distribute heir software. In 
this case that is the GPL and both Red Hat and myself are bound by it.

One of the terms of the GPL is that licensees (which includes Red Hat, me, and 
any other legitimate Red Hat customer) may modify the work as well as copy and 
redistribute the work or any derivative version of it. Furthermore, GPL 
prevents licensees from imposing any further restrictions of any of the rights 
that GPL grants.

Therefore, in brief, even though Red Hat have their own EULA and even though 
they could legitimately (under GPL) limit distribution of RHEL source code to 
their own customers (both paying and non-paying ones like me), they cannot 
prevent any of those customers from freely re-distributing the source code or 
modifying it. Thus a free re-distribution could still be created, no matter 
what.

The only limitation that Red Hat could feasibly add would relate to their own 
trademarked intellectual property that is not part of the source as such, such 
as trade names, trademark images, etc. I *presume* (but I am not certain and 
have not checked) that I might need to remove these trademarked properties from 
the source RPMs before redistributing the source code. This is, of course, 
exactly what the CentOS project did and still does.

As a matter of interest, can anyone confirm whether I'd need to remove Red 
Hat's trademarked intellectual property from their source RPMs before 
re-distributing them under GPL or could I re-distribute under GPL them 
unchanged?

Re: question regarding the future

[Tom H]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:17 PM David Sommerseth
 wrote:


> First of all, it is Red Hat (two words) :)

Yes!

:)


> But I don't really understand this Red Hat scepticism.

Anti-corporate world attitude?


> What would Red Hat, even from a commercial standpoint, win by
> crippling CentOS or its open source efforts in any way? Yes, what
> Red Hat does costs money, but they also earn money on exactly what
> they do. I don't think Red Hat's biggest fear is that CentOS will
> "overtake" RHEL. I would suspect Red Hat biggest fear is users
> moving *away* from the RHEL universe, moving to other non-RHEL based
> distributions, that the mindset changes to be something else than
> RHEL - because migration from SL/CentOS to RHEL is simpler and
> smoother than any other distro. I would expect Red Hat to be far
> more concerned about users moving towards SUSE, Debian or Ubuntu.
> Nowadays in the container oriented world, even Alpine Linux might be
> a growing concern. And just because of this, it would be little
> market gain to "experiment" with CentOS and risk upsetting its
> users.
>
> I've lost count how big Red Hat has grown, but they're at least
> somewhere in the 12-15k people today. The vast majority here are
> geeks who embraces open source development. The company markets open
> source as its key motivation. Even Jim Whitehurst runs Fedora on
> his home computers (unless something has changed the last few
> years). If Red Hat does a bad move, I would expect quite an uproar
> inside the company as well. Keyword here is: memo-list [0].
>
> And *if* Red Hat messes up CentOS ... what do you think would
> happen? Red Hat can't shut-off complete access to the source code
> RHEL/CentOS requires.

Red hat can limit access to its source RPMs to its paying customers
and prevent free rebuilds, but it's not in its interest to do so.
CentOS gives Red Hat's customers a large pool of RHEL-compatible
sysadmins.

Re: question regarding the future

[David Sommerseth]

On 27/04/2019 14:15, Maarten wrote:
> Hello fellow SL users,
> 
> I having been using SL for a while now, after the CentOS project became
> part of Redhat I was glad that I was using SL because I would think that
> CentOS would become a middle testing ground for Redhat to test new things,
> getting the idea SL would stay closer to the source since it just being
> another clone. Now that it has been announced that there will be no SL8,
> what's the best clone to switch to after EOL of SL6 and SL7. Even though 
> Redhat says that  CentOS will never be used as a testing ground or switch
> how they are doing things, I do not believe what they say now will be the
> same in the future.

First of all, it is Red Hat (two words) :)

But I don't really understand this Red Hat scepticism.  What would Red Hat,
even from a commercial standpoint, win by crippling CentOS or it's open source
efforts in any way?  Yes, what Red Hat does costs money, but they also earn
money on exactly what they do.  I don't think Red Hat's biggest fear is that
CentOS will "overtake" RHEL.  I would suspect Red Hat biggest fear is users
moving *away* from the RHEL universe, moving to other non-RHEL based
distributions, that the mindset changes to be something else than RHEL -
because migration from SL/CentOS to RHEL is simpler and smoother than any
other distro.  I would expect Red Hat to be far more concerned about users
moving towards SUSE, Debian or Ubuntu.  Nowadays in the container oriented
world, even Alpine Linux might be a growing concern.  And just because of
this, it would be little market gain to "experiment" with CentOS and risk
upsetting its users.

I've lost count how big Red Hat has grown, but they're at least somewhere in
the 12-15k people today.  The vast majority here are geeks who embraces open
source development.  The company markets open source as it's key motivation.
Even Jim Whitehurst runs Fedora on his home computers (unless something has
changed the last few years).  If Red Hat does a bad move, I would expect quite
an uproar inside the company as well.  Keyword here is: memo-list [0].

And *if* Red Hat messes up CentOS ... what do you think would happen?  Red Hat
can't shut-off complete access to the source code RHEL/CentOS requires.  I
would expect a massive part of the CentOS community to pick up where Red Hat
dropped the ball.  Remember, CentOS has only been part of Red Hat the last 5
years.  This has been done before, it can still happen again.

CentOS is first of all a downstream Linux distribution, based on RHEL.  RHEL
is a downstream distribution, based on packages from Fedora.  So Red Hat
doesn't really need CentOS to be anything like experimental.  It already has
that playground with Fedora.

And IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong), SL is mostly built from the CentOS
source RPM packages.


[0]



--
kind regard,

David Sommerseth

Re: question regarding the future

[sl+users]

From: David Sommerseth 

On 28/04/2019 22:42, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 4/28/19 11:03 AM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 02:15:42PM +0200, Maarten wrote:
>>> Hello fellow SL users,
>>> I having been using SL for a while now, ...
>>> there will be no SL8...
>>> the future [?]
>>
>>
>> I look at the future throught the mirror of today's problems.
>>
>> And today's problems in the RH/CentOS/SL universe do not project a bright
>> sunny future:
>>
>> - systemd is a mess up. with luck IBM's purchase will clean house on this 
>> one.
> 
> I'm pretty sure any chance of systemd being replaced any time soon is
> vanishingly small.  Embrace it, file bugs, move on with life.

+1

>> - c++, cmake, python, php, etc are always 1-2 versions behind those required
>> by packages we need to use
> 
> This has been a problem inherent with "Enterprise" distributions that value
> stability over new features.  That said, I've found that RHEL7 has been much
> more aggressive with updates (sometimes annoyingly so) that EL6 was.  Also,
> with modules in EL8 hopefully this will be much better.

Correct.  In addition, there is the devtoolset packages which provides
up-to-date compilers as well.  I'm doing my primary development on EL-7,
testing builds with native EL7 and GCC version 6, 7 and 8.  Just install
yum-conf-softwarecollections.noarch and you have all the devtoolset variants
available.  This repo also provides up-to-date PHP and Python packages as
well.  In regards to up-to-date CMake, Fedora EPEL provides cmake3-3.13.4.

SCL isn't necessarily the best approach for all use cases, but it certainly
works if you want to make it work.

>> - ZFS is not part of the base system, does not play well with kernel updates
>> - NIS will be removed in el8, with no replacement (LDAP need not apply
>> unless they sorted out handling of autofs maps)
> 
> NIS, seriously?  FWIW - I use autofs with LDAP (by way of IPA) extensively
> without issue.

+1

>> - incoming mess up of X11 via Wayland graphics
> 
> This does not seem tied to any one particular distribution, unless there are
> some trying to avoid Wayland altogether? Though I can't imagine that being
> viable for long.

Isn't Fedora shipping with Wayland enabled by default nowadays?  And Ubuntu is
moving towards this direction too.  IIRC, Wayland is also under tech-preview
for RHEL-7.  I would be surprised if Wayland wouldn't be shipped in RHEL-8.

[...snip...]

>> P.S. What's the beef with systemd? Apart from sundry bugs (for example,
>> sometimes
>> it does not respect the startup order specified in the unit files), we have
>> been
>> forced to disable all automatic updates (usually a nightly cron job). This is
>> because an update of the systemd package triggers/forces the restart of every
>> system service (nis, nfs, autofs, etc), effectively a reboot of the machine
>> (minus rebooting of the linux kernel). Not a nice thing to happen on 
>> production
>> machines on random nights whenever updated systemd is pushed out (usally 2-3
>> times a year).
>> Of course in our experience, about 50% of the time something goes wrong and
>> one of the services
>> restarted by the systemd update does not restart correctly yielding a dead
>> machine.
>> Rant over.
> 
> I run with automatic updates and have never seen a systemd update force a
> restart of every system service.

+1 ... never seen anything like that at all, on something like 20+ SL7 boxes
over several years.

In addition, there is the "exclude" setting you can add to the
yum{,-cron,-cron-hourly}.conf config files.


-- 
kind regards,

David Sommerseth

Re: question regarding the future

[Brett Viren]

Bill Maidment  writes:

> If anything does go awry in the future, I do not see major science
> institutions sitting back and doing nothing about it. Maybe even SL
> would then arise again? Call it Phoenix?

My personal guess is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
again create a Linux distribution that is primarily sponsored by a US
gov't lab.  In the future, things will have to be dire indeed for a lab
to justify the budget.  The fact that FNAL has kept SL going as long as
it has is rather remarkable.

That said, I think, and have always thought, the HEP community would be
better off if it moved en masse to Debian.  (systemd grumpiness, aside)

-Brett.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: question regarding the future

[Orion Poplawski]

On 4/28/19 11:03 AM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 02:15:42PM +0200, Maarten wrote:

Hello fellow SL users,
I having been using SL for a while now, ...
there will be no SL8...
the future [?]



I look at the future throught the mirror of today's problems.

And today's problems in the RH/CentOS/SL universe do not project a bright
sunny future:

- systemd is a mess up. with luck IBM's purchase will clean house on this one.


I'm pretty sure any chance of systemd being replaced any time soon is 
vanishingly small.  Embrace it, file bugs, move on with life.



- c++, cmake, python, php, etc are always 1-2 versions behind those required by 
packages we need to use


This has been a problem inherent with "Enterprise" distributions that 
value stability over new features.  That said, I've found that RHEL7 has 
been much more aggressive with updates (sometimes annoyingly so) that 
EL6 was.  Also, with modules in EL8 hopefully this will be much better.



- ZFS is not part of the base system, does not play well with kernel updates
- NIS will be removed in el8, with no replacement (LDAP need not apply unless 
they sorted out handling of autofs maps)


NIS, seriously?  FWIW - I use autofs with LDAP (by way of IPA) 
extensively without issue.



- incoming mess up of X11 via Wayland graphics


This does not seem tied to any one particular distribution, unless there 
are some trying to avoid Wayland altogether? Though I can't imagine that 
being viable for long.



On the data analysis side we are married to CERN via the ROOT data analysis 
package,
and the vibes I get from ROOT developers is that CERN Linux 7 (CentOS7) is not 
their
primary target. (for example we had a problem with ROOT graphics where ROOT's 
LLVM collided
with LLVM inside the el7 OpenGL library. For sure, Mesa has it fixed "in the latest 
version",
but for us running vanilla CentOS7, nothing worked. And still does not work, 
the best I know).

So it looks like we will be looking at Linuxes other than RH/CentOS, especially
if a popular systemd-free variant somehow emerges. A move to Ubuntu is quite 
likely
just because it tends to have recently recent c++, python, php & co.


P.S. What's the beef with systemd? Apart from sundry bugs (for example, 
sometimes
it does not respect the startup order specified in the unit files), we have been
forced to disable all automatic updates (usually a nightly cron job). This is
because an update of the systemd package triggers/forces the restart of every
system service (nis, nfs, autofs, etc), effectively a reboot of the machine
(minus rebooting of the linux kernel). Not a nice thing to happen on production
machines on random nights whenever updated systemd is pushed out (usally 2-3 
times a year).
Of course in our experience, about 50% of the time something goes wrong and one 
of the services
restarted by the systemd update does not restart correctly yielding a dead 
machine.
Rant over.


I run with automatic updates and have never seen a systemd update force 
a restart of every system service.


--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems  720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane   or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: question regarding the future

[Konstantin Olchanski]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 02:15:42PM +0200, Maarten wrote:
> Hello fellow SL users,
> I having been using SL for a while now, ...
> there will be no SL8...
> the future [?]


I look at the future throught the mirror of today's problems.

And today's problems in the RH/CentOS/SL universe do not project a bright
sunny future:

- systemd is a mess up. with luck IBM's purchase will clean house on this one.
- c++, cmake, python, php, etc are always 1-2 versions behind those required by 
packages we need to use
- ZFS is not part of the base system, does not play well with kernel updates
- NIS will be removed in el8, with no replacement (LDAP need not apply unless 
they sorted out handling of autofs maps)
- incoming mess up of X11 via Wayland graphics

On the data analysis side we are married to CERN via the ROOT data analysis 
package,
and the vibes I get from ROOT developers is that CERN Linux 7 (CentOS7) is not 
their
primary target. (for example we had a problem with ROOT graphics where ROOT's 
LLVM collided
with LLVM inside the el7 OpenGL library. For sure, Mesa has it fixed "in the 
latest version",
but for us running vanilla CentOS7, nothing worked. And still does not work, 
the best I know).

So it looks like we will be looking at Linuxes other than RH/CentOS, especially
if a popular systemd-free variant somehow emerges. A move to Ubuntu is quite 
likely
just because it tends to have recently recent c++, python, php & co.


P.S. What's the beef with systemd? Apart from sundry bugs (for example, 
sometimes
it does not respect the startup order specified in the unit files), we have been
forced to disable all automatic updates (usually a nightly cron job). This is
because an update of the systemd package triggers/forces the restart of every
system service (nis, nfs, autofs, etc), effectively a reboot of the machine
(minus rebooting of the linux kernel). Not a nice thing to happen on production
machines on random nights whenever updated systemd is pushed out (usally 2-3 
times a year).
Of course in our experience, about 50% of the time something goes wrong and one 
of the services
restarted by the systemd update does not restart correctly yielding a dead 
machine.
Rant over.


-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

RE: question regarding the future

[Bill Maidment]

Hi
I moved from CentOS 5 to SL6 when I urgently needed version 6 for some of its 
new features, and CentOS didn't get their act together for a few months.
I stayed with SL because of the extremely helpful, caring people who made up 
the team as well as those on the mailing lists.
It seemed a logical move for Fermilab to move to CentOS after CERN did that a 
while back. CentOS has matured since then and I do not see RedHat or IBM as 
threats, especially since Fermilab, CERN, et. al. will be helping to improve 
the product.
If anything does go awry in the future, I do not see major science institutions 
sitting back and doing nothing about it. Maybe even SL would then arise again? 
Call it Phoenix?
Anyway, I am now looking forward to CentOS 8. Are we there yet?
Cheers from an old-timer, with less than 2 cents left to contribute.
Bill
 
 
-Original message-
> From:Maarten 
> Sent: Sunday 28th April 2019 3:55
> To: scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov
> Subject: Re: question regarding the future
> 
> I still find it uncertain of what might happen in the future, changes 
> can take more then a couple of years to develop.
> Also with IBM having bought Redhat the future can still be uncertain, 
> IBM is not known for their opensource projects.
> Yes with Fermilab, CERN and other labs deciding to go with CentOS 
> chances are increased of CentOS staying the way
> it us, but Redhat and IBM remains a companies and companies are driven 
> by increasing their profit. Just my two cents ;)
> 
> On 4/27/19 7:18 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> > I think this misses the point.
> >
> > SL was a major 'security blanket' for the uncertainty that was 
> > happening with RedHat essentially taking control of CentOS. People 
> > were not sure which way things were going to go, so SL filled the gap.
> >
> > As time has passed, RedHat has done the right thing so far with CentOS 
> > - and a lot of people are less nervous as a result.
> >
> > I understand the decision not to do an SL8 - as the environment is 
> > pretty settled again and it is much clearer how this will run. It's 
> > better to utilise those resources on a more internal focus.
> >
> > The threat of CentOS disappearing is gone, so most people will 
> > probably pick up CentOS 8 when it comes around to it.
> > Steven Haigh
> >
> >  net...@crc.id.au     
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.crc.id.au=DwIFaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=bxSPoSV3klZdWvNSRY1MzfipTnfuVcJ-eFb3mV2ht3A=z13E-77e2i9E3Fd3_dgZfCfqJPga60K5Jdz9WOj_qIA=
> >  +61 (3) 9001 6090     0412 935 897
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 1:08 AM, John Holmes  
> > wrote:
> >> Try Springdale Linux (formerly PUIAS), it was started long before 
> >> CentOS.
> >> PU-IAS = Princeton University - Institute for Advanced Study
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__springdale.math.ias.edu_=DwIDaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=wP65fR-SDNTSPXnXaiYwSUdkmZtorgLfyxLkJX73d1U=GCfR5v9kjH_NGH0--yMHNpy_l708MANUmXBGhyDJIBw=
> >>  
> >>
> >>
> >> On 27/04/2019 14:15, Maarten wrote:
> >>>  Hello fellow SL users,
> >>>
> >>>  I having been using SL for a while now, after the CentOS project 
> >>> became
> >>>  part of Redhat
> >>>  I was glad that I was using SL because I would think that CentOS would
> >>>  become a middle
> >>>  testing ground for Redhat to test new things, getting the idea SL 
> >>> would
> >>>  stay closer to the
> >>>  source since it just being another clone. Now that it has been 
> >>> announced
> >>>  that there will
> >>>  be no SL8, what's the best clone to switch to after EOL of SL6 and 
> >>> SL7.
> >>>  Even  though
> >>>  Redhat says that  CentOS will never be used as a testing ground or
> >>>  switch how they are
> >>>  doing things, I do not believe what they say now will be the same 
> >>> in the
> >>>  future.
> >
> >
> 
> 

Re: question regarding the future

[Steven Haigh]

I think this misses the point.

SL was a major 'security blanket' for the uncertainty that was 
happening with RedHat essentially taking control of CentOS. People were 
not sure which way things were going to go, so SL filled the gap.


As time has passed, RedHat has done the right thing so far with CentOS 
- and a lot of people are less nervous as a result.


I understand the decision not to do an SL8 - as the environment is 
pretty settled again and it is much clearer how this will run. It's 
better to utilise those resources on a more internal focus.


The threat of CentOS disappearing is gone, so most people will probably 
pick up CentOS 8 when it comes around to it.

Steven Haigh

 net...@crc.id.au   
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.crc.id.au=DwIFaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=bxSPoSV3klZdWvNSRY1MzfipTnfuVcJ-eFb3mV2ht3A=z13E-77e2i9E3Fd3_dgZfCfqJPga60K5Jdz9WOj_qIA=
 +61 (3) 9001 6090  0412 935 897

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 1:08 AM, John Holmes  
wrote:
Try Springdale Linux (formerly PUIAS), it was started long before 
CentOS.

PU-IAS = Princeton University - Institute for Advanced Study
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__springdale.math.ias.edu_=DwIDaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=wP65fR-SDNTSPXnXaiYwSUdkmZtorgLfyxLkJX73d1U=GCfR5v9kjH_NGH0--yMHNpy_l708MANUmXBGhyDJIBw=

On 27/04/2019 14:15, Maarten wrote:

 Hello fellow SL users,

 I having been using SL for a while now, after the CentOS project 
became

 part of Redhat
 I was glad that I was using SL because I would think that CentOS 
would

 become a middle
 testing ground for Redhat to test new things, getting the idea SL 
would

 stay closer to the
 source since it just being another clone. Now that it has been 
announced

 that there will
 be no SL8, what's the best clone to switch to after EOL of SL6 and 
SL7.

 Even  though
 Redhat says that  CentOS will never be used as a testing ground or
 switch how they are
 doing things, I do not believe what they say now will be the same 
in the

 future.

Re: question regarding the future

[John Holmes]

Try Springdale Linux (formerly PUIAS), it was started long before CentOS.
PU-IAS = Princeton University - Institute for Advanced Study
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__springdale.math.ias.edu_=DwIDaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=wP65fR-SDNTSPXnXaiYwSUdkmZtorgLfyxLkJX73d1U=GCfR5v9kjH_NGH0--yMHNpy_l708MANUmXBGhyDJIBw=

On 27/04/2019 14:15, Maarten wrote:
> Hello fellow SL users,
> 
> I having been using SL for a while now, after the CentOS project became
> part of Redhat
> I was glad that I was using SL because I would think that CentOS would
> become a middle
> testing ground for Redhat to test new things, getting the idea SL would
> stay closer to the
> source since it just being another clone. Now that it has been announced
> that there will
> be no SL8, what's the best clone to switch to after EOL of SL6 and SL7.
> Even  though
> Redhat says that  CentOS will never be used as a testing ground or
> switch how they are
> doing things, I do not believe what they say now will be the same in the
> future.