back to article New CentOS Linux distro sips updates from RHEL codebase like an ever-flowing Stream

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 …

  1. Bronek Kozicki Silver badge

    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.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    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)

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: The Windows comparison

      "W10 forces untried and untested updates down my throat"

      Actually, Redmond does no such thing. In fact, you CHOOSE to use their crapware. There are plenty of alternatives out there. Vote with your wallet.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The Windows comparison

        OK, so a customer forces Windows on me whilst MS force untried and untested updates down my throat. Does that suit you better?

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: The Windows comparison

          Again, that is the path that YOU chose.

          Myself, I have no clients who "force" Windows on me. In fact, I haven't worked on a Redmond based system in anger in almost ten years. Try it, you might like it. Or not. But it's your choice. ::shrugs::

      2. 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 )

  3. alain williams Silver badge

    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.

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      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...

      1. kmedcalf

        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..."

        And you better not forget to reboot every 6 months. My memory is not entirely clear but Windows does have a rather short limit in how long it will run before it stops working and fudge-packs itself. Windows XP was 37 days (tells you something when it took 5 years before anyone noticed, does it not?). Later versions of Windows are just over a year I believe.

        This was a "new feature" added to WIndows XP/2003 and later versions of the OS. Neither Windows NT nor Windows 2000 had a built-in fudge-packer that crippled the Operating System on a timed schedule.

        1. Korev Silver badge

          Re: Workhorse computers should be boring

          >Windows XP was 37 days (tells you something when it took 5 years before anyone noticed, does it not?).

          It's a desktop OS, most people will turn the computer off when it's not in use.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Workhorse computers should be boring

        Surely any server needs rebooting for security updates though? Or at least services restarting and something clever for the kernel like ksplice? (And as far as I know Windows doesn't have a kernel live patch system?)

    2. Soruk

      Re: Workhorse computers should be boring

      I will be waiting for at least CentOS 8.1 before migrating any production CentOS 6 boxes. I'll install 8.0, but only on boxes for tinkering with and figuring it out.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Say again

    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...

  5. 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.

    Brgds

    1. 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.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Where are these supposed "so many people are saying "it [Fedora] is unstable""? I don't see anybody here saying that. Not one.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019