This appears to be a "rolling release" CentOS, with the update strategy similar to ArchLinux. It won't tempt me to CentoOS but good luck for those who are looking for something between Arch and RH.
CentOS has told devs that they can now get stuck into Stream, a new Linux distro it built with code planned for the next minor release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Wait, you may think, is it not Fedora Linux that is based on early RHEL code? True, and Fedora is Red Hat's free distribution with a twice-yearly release …
Wednesday 25th September 2019 14:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
The Windows comparison
You can think of both Fedora and CentOS Stream as a way for Red Hat to get the community to test its products before release. It is similar in concept to Microsoft's Insider programme for Windows, and nearly as confusing. ®
I would have thought that Windows 10 was Microsoft following the Fedora model. Only with Fedora those using it know they're riding the crest of a wave whereas W10 forces untried and untested updates down my throat whether I want them or not.*
(* sorry just had another forced update which lost a load of work and buggered things up again)
Wednesday 25th September 2019 19:38 GMT jake
Wednesday 25th September 2019 22:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Friday 27th September 2019 09:40 GMT leexgx
Re: The Windows comparison
if you use window 10 pro you can control the updates some what more
20 days delay on normal updates and 150 day delay on feature os upgrade
this norm make sure you getting well tested updates (so everyone els who uses normal settings can brake there pcs first and normally ms pulls the broken update within 7-15 days so when it re released it shouldn't break your customers who set to 20 day deley )
Wednesday 25th September 2019 15:00 GMT alain williams
Workhorse computers should be boring
This is why I will put RHEL/CentOS on a machine: I configure it and, by & large, it just keeps going. I do not want to play with the config or tweak programs just to keep it going. I don't mind that when I do a major upgrade when, a decade later, it is end-of-lifed. I will be upgrading my CentOS 6 servers to CentOS 8 in a few months time - then leave them (almost) alone for years.
Wednesday 25th September 2019 16:09 GMT Khaptain
Re: Workhorse computers should be boring
I do the same with some of our Windows servers. Whether it be good or bad, I have a pair of Windows 2003 servers that have been running for the last 12 years. They get rebooted at most twice a year...
They both run MS Sql Server and neither of them have ever failed or had the slightest problem in all that time.... And these are production servers running our primary application...
People tend to forget that Windows Servers are also capable of doing good work for long periods of time...
Wednesday 25th September 2019 23:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
I need a better explanation of why CentOS Stream exists...
IBM had one foot in CentOS. Now they have the other foot in Red Hat. CentOS Stream is the cement that binds them together.
Now all they need is a deep body of water... and someone willing to hold their breath a reallly long time.
Give CentOS Stream a try, and let me know how it goes...
Thursday 26th September 2019 12:01 GMT dovla091
OK, what's wrong with Fedora that so many people are saying "it is unstable". I have been using it for very long time now, I did not encounter any crash that would divert me from that distro, so I wonder what the hell are you doing with it, that is so "unstable"?
Second thing, the reason why I use it, is by the time I would get the hw support on RHEL or CentOS, my laptop can be literally considered an obsolete, seriously... So having as you call "bleeding edge" gives me a chance to use my laptop with "almost" full support. Again, during my usage of that distro, I did not get any issues, so I would kindly ask anyone to give me a good example, so I can replicate and test it myself to believe that it is "unstable" as you guys/girls are claiming.
Thursday 26th September 2019 23:33 GMT egreen99
Fedora is unstable in that you have to take down your site every six months to upgrade to the next supported release, or you lose access to bug fixes and thus your site becomes vulnerable to attack by hackers. Whereas with Centos, you do 'yum update' every so often and only need to reboot if the kernel changed and if the kernel changed in a way that matters to you. (If some obscure function changed that I don't use, obviously I don't need to reboot). I've had Centos systems up and running serving code continually for two years straight, interrupted only by a power outage that took down the host ESXi server. I've never had an outage more than a minute due to an update from one minor version of Centos to the next minor version of Centos. Meanwhile, Fedora requires an outage of close to an hour with each update.