This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CentOS article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | CAOS Linux was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 April 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into CentOS. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be a bit of an edit war over whether the family for CentOS should be "Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux". Personally, I prefer "Unix-like", because the body of the article already explains how it's based on RedHat, and "Unix" seems to be a pretty good description of what CentOS is. Thoughts? Samboy ( talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As a result of a previous discussion the article was changed in April to read: "Red Hat includes proprietary software to access the Red Hat Network (up2date in older versions, yum with custom plugins in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5) for managing software installation." Sorry, but this is not correct, both are GPL'ed just like the whole RHN. Grab the srpm from [1], extract it and take a look at the headers of the source code:
Same for yum-rhn-plugin [2]:
Can somebody please fix this? -- 80.143.239.60 ( talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed this line because it sounded subjective, no citation, weasel words, and for all I know... not even necessarily true (I could go on.): As of right now, in the public eye, Lance's credibility and potential for being trusted for involvement in future business endeavors is on the chopping block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.25.19 ( talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I know the open letter existed, but it was the question of Lance's credibility and trust being on the chopping blank "in the public eye". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.25.19 ( talk) 03:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Came here looking for info on what was obliquely referred to as "the CentOS debacle" on some site. I'll try to add a brief section which is more objective. -- Thomas B♘ talk 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to document the Redhat/Fedora release on which a RHEL version is based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.176.30 ( talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Citation 36 links back to the same article... Always bad to use circular reasoning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.85.9 ( talk) 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I've heard it as sen-tos and sent-oh-ess. 173.9.10.235 ( talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What exactly does the delay column mean? The delay in releasing the distribution? What about updates? - Letsbefiends ( talk) 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Quote: In July 2010, CentOS overtook Debian to become the most popular Linux distribution for web servers, with almost 30% of all Linux web servers using it,[5] although Debian retook the lead in January 2012
Really? C'mon, quit lying about Debian, CentOS, whatever. NO ONE has a clue to "which OS is most popular". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.18.173.105 ( talk) 22:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I know that an Image:CentOS_full_logo.svg is registered in "non-free". However, there is clear statement of Creative Commons as far as I look at the applicable site:
If this is right, it is necessary to change the license of the picture file definitely. This greatly influences an exhibition to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia of other languages in particular. I demand comment and the support of user everybody. -- 志賀 慶一 Keiichi SHIGA ( talk) 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that CentOS was a continuation of the White Box project. Never heard of cAos linux before. Gigs ( talk) 18:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, White Box and CAOS merged. There's more context in [ interview]. I'd edit the article myself, but apparently Quetstar thinks I can't be neutral. rbowen2000 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The architectures section would benefit from a table showing which processor architectures are supported by which CentOS versions, so that people can see with which version an architecture became supported and with which version it lost support. Could someone in the know replace the existing list with such a table? FreeFlow99 ( talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Fedora (operating system)#Architectures mentions Pidora as the "specialized Fedora distribution for the Raspberry Pi" prior to official support for ARM-hfp (eg RPi2); neither CentOS nor RHEL mention RedSleeve as the specialized EL7.1 distribution for the Raspberry Pi prior to official support for ARMv7hf. Can we add it to either or both pages? Fedora / YellowDog / RHEL / CentOS / SciLinux distributions for the older ARMel, or Raspberry Pi, or Excito Bubba3, etc. hardware are scarce and that makes them very difficult to discover if they don't get a mention from articles on the major industrial distributions where everybody naturally heads to when searching for "but can I get this for my Raspberry Pi?" 110.146.159.51 ( talk) 00:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The Repositories section states, "There are two primary CentOS repositories," but the list that follows has three items. My first thought was to edit the page to say three instead of two, but then I thought there might be some distinction that I'm not aware of. One of those three might not belong. Could someone with knowledge on the topic look at this? un4v41l48l3 ( talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The last 6 days someone who is not registered keeps changing CentOS verion 8 from latest, still supported version to Old unsupported version. This is factually incorrect. CentOS will receive normal updates for another whole year. Supports ends in decenber 2021, not This december. Can we make this stop, please? Maybe by protecting this page from edits by unregistered users for a week or two? Solbu ( talk) 07:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Centos was free, so i expected it to end dev anytime — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Are there any plans to update the article to describe the recent decision to terminate CentOS 8 in favor of CentOS Stream?
See [1]
Seldenball ( talk) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Seldenball ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I reverted it due to WP:NPOV Quetstar ( talk) 04:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It is not "neutral" to claim that the CentOS Project has been terminated. It is, rather, false. The CentOS project has multiple outputs and one of them has been discontinued. Therefore, the change I made was correcting an error. The article now, once again, contains false information. Calling that "neutral" is sophistry, at best. The notion that I cannot tell the truth because I work for Red Hat is bizarre, particularly when the change i made is unambiguously true, and, meanwhile, I left other things in the article that are *clearly* opinion. rbowen2000 13:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Commercial advertisements are not allowed . All your edits are going to be reverted!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xose.vazquez ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Quetstar, please stop blinding reverting my edits. Tell me what is wrong with them so I can improve them. I would like to collaborate with you but you are making it quite difficult. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 00:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Quetstar's comments here clearly demonstrate that they are completely ignorant not only of what happened, but about the project in general, and merely has a personal vendetta that they wish to pursue. Making an ad hominem attack against the board of directors is unwarranted and libelous, and further shows ignorance of how the governance of the project works, and has worked for 15+ years. Can we please stop this nonsense? Rbowen2000 ( talk) 12:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a documented procedure for addressing bias. [5] Failure to follow this procedure will be reported to the admins. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to remind other editors of this page that a conflict of interest is not the same thing as bias. [6] I have disclosed my own COI on my user page using the Template:UserboxCOI. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 00:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I want to edit the section describing CentOS stream to read the following:
“CentOS Stream is a rolling release Linux distribution midstream between the upstream development in Fedora and the downstream development for RHEL. The initial release was based on CentOS Linux 8 software packages the project was building with the latest RHEL 8 development kernel.”
Any more ideas? Quetstar ( talk) 22:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please add this row to the chart under "Latest version information".
8.4-2105 | x86_64, ppc64le, aarch64 | 8.4 | 4.18.0-305 | 2021-06-03 [1] | 2021-05-18 [2] [3] | 16 |
---|
Carlwgeorge ( talk) 01:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Release Dates
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Presently the article states that CentOS (Linux) is in a singularly discontinued state. I believe this doesn't properly reflect the development status of the distribution as it is not in its "active discontinuation" but in simultaneous states between the multiple "sub"-projects.
CentOS Linux 8 is slated for a future discontinuation of 31 Dec 2021, however the development team is and will actively maintain the distribution until that time arrives.
CentOS Linux 7 is still actively maintained and will continue to be so for the original designated lifecycle of RHEL 7, which will end 30 June 2024 [1]. The final CentOS Linux 7 updates will likely arrive around that date as the RHEL product shifts into its customer only extended support lifecycle.
This approaches a larger topic as to what the purpose of this article should be: CentOS Linux or CentOS the Project. If it is indeed about CentOS Linux, then I have a few suggestions:
Personally, I believe the article should be about the Project, as it fully encompasses CentOS Linux, CentOS Stream, the Special Interest Groups, and the community.
At the very least, perhaps multiple status parameters could be used? It would help to differentiate between currently active versions or between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream, i.e.:
| CentOS Stream 8 Status = Active | CentOS Linux 8 Status = Planned Discontinuation | CentOS Linux 7 Status = Active
or
| CentOS Stream = Active | CentOS Linux = Planned Discontinuation
OmenosDev ( talk) 03:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I opened a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox OS#Problem with "Working state" parameter before the above comment. -- FMM-1992 ( talk) 18:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I am in favor of this approach to keep the article only about "CentOS Linux", so user:OmenosDev please create an article for "CentOS Stream", and then it is better to rename this article to "CentOS Linux".-- FMM-1992 ( talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I am one of the core developers of CentOS and I'd like to weigh in as a subject matter expert on the working state of the distribution. CentOS is going through a period of transition. There are currently two variants of the distribution. The classic downstream variant ("CentOS Linux"), and the new upstream variant ("CentOS Stream"). Upstream/downstream in this context is relevant to the corresponding major version of RHEL. CentOS major version 7 is only offered in the downstream variant. Major version 8 is offered in both variants. Major version 9 will only be offered in the upstream variant. After all variants of 7 and 8 have reached the end of their respective lifecycles (2024), when people say CentOS, they will be unambiguously referring to new upstream variant (e.g. CentOS 9, CentOS 10, etc). This is a major change by the project, and many people strongly dislike the change. But regardless of popularity, CentOS Stream is not some drastically different thing. It's not a rolling release, despite the initial marketing describing it that way. There are still major versions and EOL dates. The recently released CentOS Linux 8.4 was comprised almost entirely of RPMs that were released within the last six months in CentOS Stream 8. Even now with the updates released in the last week, CentOS Stream 8 is 84% identical to CentOS Linux 8. As this article is about the overall distribution, not a specific version, the working state should be listed as current. I have no issue with the article covering all the messy details of how Red Hat (my employer) botched the execution of this transition, but the article should be accurate that it is a transition, not a discontinuation. I'm sure Quetstar will accuse me of trying to "spin" this for the sake of my employer, but nothing could be further from the truth. I hate how this went down. I hate how advice from engineers like myself was ignored when setting the timelines for the transition. I hate that the new free RHEL offerings weren't ready in time for the announcement. I hate that we didn't start the new variant with major version 9. I hate that EOL date for the downstream variant of 8 was changed. But more than any of that, I hate that the spite and anger over this change is dividing the community and preventing people from working together. Wikipedia doesn't exist to carry out Quetstar's personal vendetta. It doesn't exist to punish Red Hat the company or Red Hat employees for a badly executed change in an open source project. Wikipedia is where people come for information and facts. This article should describe the facts, both good and bad, but it should not manipulate the information or leave things out based on one editor's opinions. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 04:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Quetstar: I made a fairly minor edit (but didn't label it as such) updating the following sentence:
"RHEL is available only through a paid subscription service or for development use in a non-production environment[32] – which provides access to software updates and varying levels of technical support."
to
"RHEL is available through a paid subscription service or at no-cost within the constraints of the Red Hat Developer program[32] – which provides access to software updates and varying levels of technical support."
This edit was made because the former sentence is referencing the no-cost subscription available under the RH Developer program which previously only allowed usage in development and non-production environments. Those terms have changed to allow for unrestricted production uses for up to 16 concurrent system activations for most uses, and other terms for other industries (such as academia, research, etc) coming down the line. I didn't specify that number in my edit because it is not/will not be a universal constraint, and have opted for a more encompassing statement. This change was not to create some a spin or hide some kind of catch with the program.
I have a few suggestions:
For the latter, it could read something like this:
" <snip two starting sentences>
CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code (available on the CentOS Pagure instance [1] and GitLab [2]) to create a final product very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's branding and logos are changed because Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.[33] CentOS is available free of charge. Technical support is primarily provided by the community via official mailing lists, web forums, and chat rooms.
The project is affiliated with Red Hat but aspires to be more public, open, and inclusive. While Red Hat employs most of the CentOS head developers, the CentOS project itself relies on donations from users and organizational sponsors.[9] " OmenosDev ( talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Quetstar ( talk) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
CentOS → CentOS Linux – The CentOS Project offers 2 Linux distros: "CentOS Linux" and "CentOS Stream", please check https://centos.org/distro-faq/ , https://centos.org/about/ , https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General , and https://centos.org/ -- per this and also since there is a consensus to keep this article only about "CentOS Linux" and there is need to a standalone and different article for "CentOS Stream", this article should be renamed to "CentOS Linux", thanks. -- FMM-1992 ( talk) 06:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE #1:
WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
By searching the Google, I could find the following for "CentOS Linux", however there were much more than these, I just mention some of those, please search it yourself to see all of them:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/where-centos-linux-users-can-go-from-here/
"Where CentOS Linux users can go from here Upset about what's happened with CentOS Linux?
Top companies that rely on CentOS Linux include Disney, GoDaddy, RackSpace, Toyota, and Verizon."
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/centos-shifts-from-red-hat-unbranded-to-red-hat-beta/
"CentOS Linux is dead
CentOS Linux will be sleeping with the fishes in 2022.
a massive change in the future and function of CentOS Linux.
Moving forward, there will be no CentOS Linux—instead, there will (only) be CentOS Stream.
Goodbye CentOS Linux, hello CentOS Stream
who isn't happy about Red Hat's decision to shutter CentOS Linux."
https://www.fedramp.gov/2021-03-30-CentOS-Linux-End-of-Life/ (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP))
"JAB Guidance on CentOS Linux End of Life"
https://www.cs.washington.edu/lab/linux/centos
"CentOS Linux at CSE"
-- FMM-1992 ( talk) 02:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Me and OmenosDev were agree to create a separate article for CentOS Stream, but because my request to move/rename this article to CentOS Linux was faild and because User:Carlwgeorge is an employee of Red Hat and works on CentOS, per what he said:
"The upstream variant of CentOS shouldn't be put into it's own article, it belongs in this one. Putting it into a separate article will just result in the articles needing to be merged later on down the road once all of the downstream variants have reached the end of their respective lifecycles. Take a look at the Fedora article, which also lists the different variants (editions and spins) in the same article."
I changed my mind and now I think CentOS Stream should be *fully covered* only in this article, but, one user, User:Quetstar has stated in #Working_State:
"The article's opening paragraph clearly states that CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL. Therefore, the entire article must be solely about the rebuild.
Stream is shrouded in controversy, and the way Red Hatters have promoted it has caused endless arguments and trouble, which is why i purged most mentions of it in the article, except for the history section, last month."
and it now only / mostly provides information about CentOS Linux, so I think there is need to a consensus here. FMM-1992 ( talk) 07:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The lede says While the distribution will be discontinued at the end of 2021, development of its rolling release variant continues. [1] [2]
References
Jamplevia ( talk) 18:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is becoming a place for people to put their pitches for other RHEL clones, which is also resulting in edit wars.
Neither the pitches or the edit warring is appropriate. I suggest we remove all references to other specific RHEL clones from this page, leaving only a link to Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 23:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The diagram is seriously out of date (10 years), particularly with the ending of CentOS and the subsequent rise of a new crop of RHEL derivatives. I woukld suggest that it should be deleted pending a more up to date diagram.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk)
09:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CentOS article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | CAOS Linux was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 April 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into CentOS. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be a bit of an edit war over whether the family for CentOS should be "Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux". Personally, I prefer "Unix-like", because the body of the article already explains how it's based on RedHat, and "Unix" seems to be a pretty good description of what CentOS is. Thoughts? Samboy ( talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As a result of a previous discussion the article was changed in April to read: "Red Hat includes proprietary software to access the Red Hat Network (up2date in older versions, yum with custom plugins in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5) for managing software installation." Sorry, but this is not correct, both are GPL'ed just like the whole RHN. Grab the srpm from [1], extract it and take a look at the headers of the source code:
Same for yum-rhn-plugin [2]:
Can somebody please fix this? -- 80.143.239.60 ( talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed this line because it sounded subjective, no citation, weasel words, and for all I know... not even necessarily true (I could go on.): As of right now, in the public eye, Lance's credibility and potential for being trusted for involvement in future business endeavors is on the chopping block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.25.19 ( talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I know the open letter existed, but it was the question of Lance's credibility and trust being on the chopping blank "in the public eye". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.25.19 ( talk) 03:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Came here looking for info on what was obliquely referred to as "the CentOS debacle" on some site. I'll try to add a brief section which is more objective. -- Thomas B♘ talk 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to document the Redhat/Fedora release on which a RHEL version is based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.176.30 ( talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Citation 36 links back to the same article... Always bad to use circular reasoning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.85.9 ( talk) 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I've heard it as sen-tos and sent-oh-ess. 173.9.10.235 ( talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What exactly does the delay column mean? The delay in releasing the distribution? What about updates? - Letsbefiends ( talk) 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Quote: In July 2010, CentOS overtook Debian to become the most popular Linux distribution for web servers, with almost 30% of all Linux web servers using it,[5] although Debian retook the lead in January 2012
Really? C'mon, quit lying about Debian, CentOS, whatever. NO ONE has a clue to "which OS is most popular". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.18.173.105 ( talk) 22:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I know that an Image:CentOS_full_logo.svg is registered in "non-free". However, there is clear statement of Creative Commons as far as I look at the applicable site:
If this is right, it is necessary to change the license of the picture file definitely. This greatly influences an exhibition to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia of other languages in particular. I demand comment and the support of user everybody. -- 志賀 慶一 Keiichi SHIGA ( talk) 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that CentOS was a continuation of the White Box project. Never heard of cAos linux before. Gigs ( talk) 18:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, White Box and CAOS merged. There's more context in [ interview]. I'd edit the article myself, but apparently Quetstar thinks I can't be neutral. rbowen2000 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The architectures section would benefit from a table showing which processor architectures are supported by which CentOS versions, so that people can see with which version an architecture became supported and with which version it lost support. Could someone in the know replace the existing list with such a table? FreeFlow99 ( talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Fedora (operating system)#Architectures mentions Pidora as the "specialized Fedora distribution for the Raspberry Pi" prior to official support for ARM-hfp (eg RPi2); neither CentOS nor RHEL mention RedSleeve as the specialized EL7.1 distribution for the Raspberry Pi prior to official support for ARMv7hf. Can we add it to either or both pages? Fedora / YellowDog / RHEL / CentOS / SciLinux distributions for the older ARMel, or Raspberry Pi, or Excito Bubba3, etc. hardware are scarce and that makes them very difficult to discover if they don't get a mention from articles on the major industrial distributions where everybody naturally heads to when searching for "but can I get this for my Raspberry Pi?" 110.146.159.51 ( talk) 00:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The Repositories section states, "There are two primary CentOS repositories," but the list that follows has three items. My first thought was to edit the page to say three instead of two, but then I thought there might be some distinction that I'm not aware of. One of those three might not belong. Could someone with knowledge on the topic look at this? un4v41l48l3 ( talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The last 6 days someone who is not registered keeps changing CentOS verion 8 from latest, still supported version to Old unsupported version. This is factually incorrect. CentOS will receive normal updates for another whole year. Supports ends in decenber 2021, not This december. Can we make this stop, please? Maybe by protecting this page from edits by unregistered users for a week or two? Solbu ( talk) 07:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Centos was free, so i expected it to end dev anytime — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Are there any plans to update the article to describe the recent decision to terminate CentOS 8 in favor of CentOS Stream?
See [1]
Seldenball ( talk) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Seldenball ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I reverted it due to WP:NPOV Quetstar ( talk) 04:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It is not "neutral" to claim that the CentOS Project has been terminated. It is, rather, false. The CentOS project has multiple outputs and one of them has been discontinued. Therefore, the change I made was correcting an error. The article now, once again, contains false information. Calling that "neutral" is sophistry, at best. The notion that I cannot tell the truth because I work for Red Hat is bizarre, particularly when the change i made is unambiguously true, and, meanwhile, I left other things in the article that are *clearly* opinion. rbowen2000 13:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Commercial advertisements are not allowed . All your edits are going to be reverted!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xose.vazquez ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Quetstar, please stop blinding reverting my edits. Tell me what is wrong with them so I can improve them. I would like to collaborate with you but you are making it quite difficult. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 00:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Quetstar's comments here clearly demonstrate that they are completely ignorant not only of what happened, but about the project in general, and merely has a personal vendetta that they wish to pursue. Making an ad hominem attack against the board of directors is unwarranted and libelous, and further shows ignorance of how the governance of the project works, and has worked for 15+ years. Can we please stop this nonsense? Rbowen2000 ( talk) 12:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a documented procedure for addressing bias. [5] Failure to follow this procedure will be reported to the admins. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to remind other editors of this page that a conflict of interest is not the same thing as bias. [6] I have disclosed my own COI on my user page using the Template:UserboxCOI. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 00:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I want to edit the section describing CentOS stream to read the following:
“CentOS Stream is a rolling release Linux distribution midstream between the upstream development in Fedora and the downstream development for RHEL. The initial release was based on CentOS Linux 8 software packages the project was building with the latest RHEL 8 development kernel.”
Any more ideas? Quetstar ( talk) 22:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please add this row to the chart under "Latest version information".
8.4-2105 | x86_64, ppc64le, aarch64 | 8.4 | 4.18.0-305 | 2021-06-03 [1] | 2021-05-18 [2] [3] | 16 |
---|
Carlwgeorge ( talk) 01:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Release Dates
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Presently the article states that CentOS (Linux) is in a singularly discontinued state. I believe this doesn't properly reflect the development status of the distribution as it is not in its "active discontinuation" but in simultaneous states between the multiple "sub"-projects.
CentOS Linux 8 is slated for a future discontinuation of 31 Dec 2021, however the development team is and will actively maintain the distribution until that time arrives.
CentOS Linux 7 is still actively maintained and will continue to be so for the original designated lifecycle of RHEL 7, which will end 30 June 2024 [1]. The final CentOS Linux 7 updates will likely arrive around that date as the RHEL product shifts into its customer only extended support lifecycle.
This approaches a larger topic as to what the purpose of this article should be: CentOS Linux or CentOS the Project. If it is indeed about CentOS Linux, then I have a few suggestions:
Personally, I believe the article should be about the Project, as it fully encompasses CentOS Linux, CentOS Stream, the Special Interest Groups, and the community.
At the very least, perhaps multiple status parameters could be used? It would help to differentiate between currently active versions or between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream, i.e.:
| CentOS Stream 8 Status = Active | CentOS Linux 8 Status = Planned Discontinuation | CentOS Linux 7 Status = Active
or
| CentOS Stream = Active | CentOS Linux = Planned Discontinuation
OmenosDev ( talk) 03:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I opened a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox OS#Problem with "Working state" parameter before the above comment. -- FMM-1992 ( talk) 18:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I am in favor of this approach to keep the article only about "CentOS Linux", so user:OmenosDev please create an article for "CentOS Stream", and then it is better to rename this article to "CentOS Linux".-- FMM-1992 ( talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I am one of the core developers of CentOS and I'd like to weigh in as a subject matter expert on the working state of the distribution. CentOS is going through a period of transition. There are currently two variants of the distribution. The classic downstream variant ("CentOS Linux"), and the new upstream variant ("CentOS Stream"). Upstream/downstream in this context is relevant to the corresponding major version of RHEL. CentOS major version 7 is only offered in the downstream variant. Major version 8 is offered in both variants. Major version 9 will only be offered in the upstream variant. After all variants of 7 and 8 have reached the end of their respective lifecycles (2024), when people say CentOS, they will be unambiguously referring to new upstream variant (e.g. CentOS 9, CentOS 10, etc). This is a major change by the project, and many people strongly dislike the change. But regardless of popularity, CentOS Stream is not some drastically different thing. It's not a rolling release, despite the initial marketing describing it that way. There are still major versions and EOL dates. The recently released CentOS Linux 8.4 was comprised almost entirely of RPMs that were released within the last six months in CentOS Stream 8. Even now with the updates released in the last week, CentOS Stream 8 is 84% identical to CentOS Linux 8. As this article is about the overall distribution, not a specific version, the working state should be listed as current. I have no issue with the article covering all the messy details of how Red Hat (my employer) botched the execution of this transition, but the article should be accurate that it is a transition, not a discontinuation. I'm sure Quetstar will accuse me of trying to "spin" this for the sake of my employer, but nothing could be further from the truth. I hate how this went down. I hate how advice from engineers like myself was ignored when setting the timelines for the transition. I hate that the new free RHEL offerings weren't ready in time for the announcement. I hate that we didn't start the new variant with major version 9. I hate that EOL date for the downstream variant of 8 was changed. But more than any of that, I hate that the spite and anger over this change is dividing the community and preventing people from working together. Wikipedia doesn't exist to carry out Quetstar's personal vendetta. It doesn't exist to punish Red Hat the company or Red Hat employees for a badly executed change in an open source project. Wikipedia is where people come for information and facts. This article should describe the facts, both good and bad, but it should not manipulate the information or leave things out based on one editor's opinions. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 04:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Quetstar: I made a fairly minor edit (but didn't label it as such) updating the following sentence:
"RHEL is available only through a paid subscription service or for development use in a non-production environment[32] – which provides access to software updates and varying levels of technical support."
to
"RHEL is available through a paid subscription service or at no-cost within the constraints of the Red Hat Developer program[32] – which provides access to software updates and varying levels of technical support."
This edit was made because the former sentence is referencing the no-cost subscription available under the RH Developer program which previously only allowed usage in development and non-production environments. Those terms have changed to allow for unrestricted production uses for up to 16 concurrent system activations for most uses, and other terms for other industries (such as academia, research, etc) coming down the line. I didn't specify that number in my edit because it is not/will not be a universal constraint, and have opted for a more encompassing statement. This change was not to create some a spin or hide some kind of catch with the program.
I have a few suggestions:
For the latter, it could read something like this:
" <snip two starting sentences>
CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code (available on the CentOS Pagure instance [1] and GitLab [2]) to create a final product very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's branding and logos are changed because Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.[33] CentOS is available free of charge. Technical support is primarily provided by the community via official mailing lists, web forums, and chat rooms.
The project is affiliated with Red Hat but aspires to be more public, open, and inclusive. While Red Hat employs most of the CentOS head developers, the CentOS project itself relies on donations from users and organizational sponsors.[9] " OmenosDev ( talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Quetstar ( talk) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
CentOS → CentOS Linux – The CentOS Project offers 2 Linux distros: "CentOS Linux" and "CentOS Stream", please check https://centos.org/distro-faq/ , https://centos.org/about/ , https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General , and https://centos.org/ -- per this and also since there is a consensus to keep this article only about "CentOS Linux" and there is need to a standalone and different article for "CentOS Stream", this article should be renamed to "CentOS Linux", thanks. -- FMM-1992 ( talk) 06:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE #1:
WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
By searching the Google, I could find the following for "CentOS Linux", however there were much more than these, I just mention some of those, please search it yourself to see all of them:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/where-centos-linux-users-can-go-from-here/
"Where CentOS Linux users can go from here Upset about what's happened with CentOS Linux?
Top companies that rely on CentOS Linux include Disney, GoDaddy, RackSpace, Toyota, and Verizon."
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/centos-shifts-from-red-hat-unbranded-to-red-hat-beta/
"CentOS Linux is dead
CentOS Linux will be sleeping with the fishes in 2022.
a massive change in the future and function of CentOS Linux.
Moving forward, there will be no CentOS Linux—instead, there will (only) be CentOS Stream.
Goodbye CentOS Linux, hello CentOS Stream
who isn't happy about Red Hat's decision to shutter CentOS Linux."
https://www.fedramp.gov/2021-03-30-CentOS-Linux-End-of-Life/ (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP))
"JAB Guidance on CentOS Linux End of Life"
https://www.cs.washington.edu/lab/linux/centos
"CentOS Linux at CSE"
-- FMM-1992 ( talk) 02:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Me and OmenosDev were agree to create a separate article for CentOS Stream, but because my request to move/rename this article to CentOS Linux was faild and because User:Carlwgeorge is an employee of Red Hat and works on CentOS, per what he said:
"The upstream variant of CentOS shouldn't be put into it's own article, it belongs in this one. Putting it into a separate article will just result in the articles needing to be merged later on down the road once all of the downstream variants have reached the end of their respective lifecycles. Take a look at the Fedora article, which also lists the different variants (editions and spins) in the same article."
I changed my mind and now I think CentOS Stream should be *fully covered* only in this article, but, one user, User:Quetstar has stated in #Working_State:
"The article's opening paragraph clearly states that CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL. Therefore, the entire article must be solely about the rebuild.
Stream is shrouded in controversy, and the way Red Hatters have promoted it has caused endless arguments and trouble, which is why i purged most mentions of it in the article, except for the history section, last month."
and it now only / mostly provides information about CentOS Linux, so I think there is need to a consensus here. FMM-1992 ( talk) 07:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The lede says While the distribution will be discontinued at the end of 2021, development of its rolling release variant continues. [1] [2]
References
Jamplevia ( talk) 18:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is becoming a place for people to put their pitches for other RHEL clones, which is also resulting in edit wars.
Neither the pitches or the edit warring is appropriate. I suggest we remove all references to other specific RHEL clones from this page, leaving only a link to Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives. Carlwgeorge ( talk) 23:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The diagram is seriously out of date (10 years), particularly with the ending of CentOS and the subsequent rise of a new crop of RHEL derivatives. I woukld suggest that it should be deleted pending a more up to date diagram.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk)
09:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)