I don't think Red Hat is trying to kill clones, but I believe they're trying to kill clones that are "1:1 compatible with RHEL".
They're trying to force a shift in what clones are supposed to be, and that started with CentOS Stream. Locking the sources to RHEL-proper is just the next step.
This may signal their death as a widely-recognizable Linux distribution vendor, but I can't really say I blame them.
If CentOS Stream isn't adequate for production — and I see it as being at least as adequate as Debian for those that also upgraded from one RHEL major to the next soon after its release — then the future of clones may lie in becoming downstreams of CentOS just like RHEL is.
I do see the value in a CentOS Stream derivative that's more conservative, but it doesn't need to be 1:1 bug compatible with RHEL.
Honestly, I don't see the point of 1:1 clones unless you're running some closed-source commercial software. And such software tends to not be supported by its vendor even on 1:1 compatible RHEL clones.
I like the Red Hat flavor of Linux, and I like the fact that I can have a machine with an OS installed in 2014 continuing to get security fixes without having to upgrade major versions. But I don't care if that's 1:1 compatible with RHEL (and it doesn't really need to be supported for 10 years).
>>clones unless you're running some closed-source commercial software. And such software tends to not be supported by its vendor even on 1:1 compatible RHEL clones.
this is false, there are TONS of commercial software that runs certified by the vendor to run on RHEL supported by the vendor on RHEL, and only supported by the vendor if you run RHEL, that is one of the things that made RedHat into a billion dollar business.
ERP systems, commerical databases (that many here probally have never heard of), and tons of other enterprise software.
Many of these vendors have been adding Ubuntu support since the CentOS changes.
Since AlmaLinux was working on a tool to allow just that — and RH Engineering told that they themselves are not interested in in-place upgrades but welcome the community to do so — crippling the said community is a double dick move.
Now, where’s that escaped lion roaming IBM office corridors when it’s needed…
They're trying to force a shift in what clones are supposed to be, and that started with CentOS Stream. Locking the sources to RHEL-proper is just the next step.
This may signal their death as a widely-recognizable Linux distribution vendor, but I can't really say I blame them.
If CentOS Stream isn't adequate for production — and I see it as being at least as adequate as Debian for those that also upgraded from one RHEL major to the next soon after its release — then the future of clones may lie in becoming downstreams of CentOS just like RHEL is.
I do see the value in a CentOS Stream derivative that's more conservative, but it doesn't need to be 1:1 bug compatible with RHEL.
Honestly, I don't see the point of 1:1 clones unless you're running some closed-source commercial software. And such software tends to not be supported by its vendor even on 1:1 compatible RHEL clones.
I like the Red Hat flavor of Linux, and I like the fact that I can have a machine with an OS installed in 2014 continuing to get security fixes without having to upgrade major versions. But I don't care if that's 1:1 compatible with RHEL (and it doesn't really need to be supported for 10 years).