
CentOS 8.0 is almost ready - znpy
https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8#head-516d5e6556bb8523b52fba246953d32831582480
======
dang
Since threads about incremental releases are inevitably discussions of the
general product, we can wait until the release is ready.

------
llarsson
Can someone weigh in on why CentOS lags behind Red Hat?

CentOS is blessed by Red Hat these days and I was under the impression that
packages are essentially new compiles from the same sources as Red Hat. What
causes delays?

(Asking out of pure interest, not malice in any form.)

~~~
bluedino
_A CentOS major release takes a lot of planning and changes in tooling as it
is based on a much newer version of Fedora than previous versions. This means
that everything from the installer, packages, packaging, and build systems
need major overhauls to work with the newer OS. This means that there is
always a ramp up period depending on the changes needed to make a rebuild
work. The differences between EL-8 and EL-7 are no exception as the kernel has
changed drastically, the repository format has added 'modules' and RPMS have
grown many features that EL7 and before do not have. About the only item which
has not drastically changed between EL7 and EL8 is the init system which is
still systemd. [This is a first as EL5 had SysV, EL6 had Upstart, and EL7 had
Systemd]._

[https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8](https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8)

~~~
robbyt
This doesn't really answer the question...

~~~
washadjeffmad
It did well enough? OP didn't ask why this release in particular seemed to lag
behind more than other releases.

The answer to that was provided generally, but it's because CentOS had to redo
their entire build system for 8.

~~~
Avshalom
The other half of the question is why centos has to wait until after RHEL8 is
released to start the work instead of being given a month or two advanced
access given their (quasi?) official status these days

~~~
nineteen999
I'm just speculating, but given that CentOS is (historically) pretty much
identical for the most part to RHEL without the high licensing cost, there is
little incentive for Redhat to ensure it is always available in lockstep with
RHEL.

They make a lot of money from RHEL licenses so why give a clone of it away on
day one of a major release.

~~~
jsjohnst
The folks who use CentOS over RHEL wouldn’t likely use RHEL even if CentOS
lagged much longer imho. You don’t buy RHEL generally because you want it
faster, you buy it because you want the support.

~~~
nineteen999
Exactly. We use Redhat because our contract with our customer explicitly
states that there has to be support from the OS vendor in place.

------
donmcronald
I've always found the relationship between RHEL and CentOS to be a bit odd.
Ignoring the technology side of things, where I prefer some of the RHEL
philosophy, using Ubuntu to gain the option of paid support makes a lot more
sense, doesn't it?

How would I switch from being a CentOS shop to a RHEL shop if I all of a
sudden find myself needing support?

~~~
bluedino
I don’t get why anyone would use CentOS if they didn’t have to for some
reason. I can understand using Redhat for “company” reasons, but why restrict
yourself by running CentOS if you don’t have a real reason to?

~~~
chasil
Exasol _loves_ CentOS.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exasol](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exasol)

Let me show you how much they love CentOS:

[http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_result_detail.asp?id=11...](http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_result_detail.asp?id=119070902)

Exasol and CentOS are alone in TPC-H database performance. There is no other
competitive player.

~~~
sofaofthedamned
So they charge for their software but deploy it on centos instead of rhel?

~~~
chasil
Yes, they do, and their TPC-H scores cannot be beaten. CentOS seems a
reasonable choice, and likely drives down the TCO.

