I see the decision to convert to CentOS stream as driven by two motivations, cost containment, and facilitating outside contributions by pushing CentOS towards Fedora (and away from RHEL stability).
I might be misreading these motivations.
With this management perspective, the CentOS community reaction to the retraction of the end of life date, and potential reduction in stability, was likely not anticipated.
> pushing CentOS towards Fedora (and away from RHEL stability)
CentOS streams is literally RHEL with fixed major version and rolling minor versions. So, in the past, you got CentOS 7.1, then 7.2, etc., with streams, you get CentOS 8.x.
Saying that this is moving away from RHEL stability sounds highly disingenuous. Are you saying you've seen RHEL 7.X to break as opposed to 7.(X-1) version, and your solution was to wait for RHEL 7.(X+1)?
Are we not reading this correctly? If not, could you get Red Hat's CTO to retract this [mis]information?
'Another official part of it is, as [Chris] Wright [RedHat CTO] said, is that CentOS Stream as a "rolling preview" of what's next in RHEL, both in terms of kernels and features can be used in today's containerized, cloud-native IT world.'
> CentOS streams is literally RHEL with fixed major version and rolling minor versions. So, in the past, you got CentOS 7.1, then 7.2, etc., with streams, you get CentOS 8.x.
> Saying that this is moving away from RHEL stability sounds highly disingenuous.
If it were so great, they'd do the same for paying customers. That they don't move RHEL to being just 8.X makes me think that Red Hat does in fact understand that that undermines the stability of the platform.
I don't follow. Are you suggesting that RH actually didn't realize that people were running CentOS at scale in production?