Taking away sanitized srpm drops probably does affect those distros who would like to be a downstream of RHEL.
when CentOS started, there were no sanitized srpm either as far as i know. it was part of the CentOS project to sanitize them. the only difference then is that those unsanitized srpms were previously public, and now they no longer are. is that correct?
if that is the case, and any clone project can get access to these srpms by paying for a single license, i don't see what the big deal is. there is nothing red hat hasn't already been doing "worse" ever since RHEL started, with the only possible exception of making srpms no longer public.
again, assuming this is correct, is there really any downside to making those srpms public?
But why wouldn't you want to collaborate with us in the upstream? Are they maybe implicitly recognizing the value in the engineering that Red Hat does? Or maybe even just the name Red Hat Enterprise Linux?
as far as i can tell it is the promise of long term stability and security updates. and the compatibility.
small businesses who can't afford a RHEL license but need that kind of promise without the other support features that red hat offers. or they develop applications that need to be able to run on RHEL. there is a market for that, and the current CentOS stream or any distribution based on it can't make the same promise as a clone.
but time will tell, alternative distributions based on CentOS stream previously didn't exist. there is one now, if i read that right, and it should be able to take some of the market that RHEL clones are in. and maybe eventually also show that their releases have an almost equal level of longterm stability and updates, as well as sufficient RHEL compatibility.
the only drawback of a distribution based on stream is the security updates that don't come until they are in RHEL. but then how long should it take for an RHEL security update to make it into CentOS stream?
when CentOS started, there were no sanitized srpm either as far as i know. it was part of the CentOS project to sanitize them. the only difference then is that those unsanitized srpms were previously public, and now they no longer are. is that correct?
if that is the case, and any clone project can get access to these srpms by paying for a single license, i don't see what the big deal is. there is nothing red hat hasn't already been doing "worse" ever since RHEL started, with the only possible exception of making srpms no longer public.
again, assuming this is correct, is there really any downside to making those srpms public?
But why wouldn't you want to collaborate with us in the upstream? Are they maybe implicitly recognizing the value in the engineering that Red Hat does? Or maybe even just the name Red Hat Enterprise Linux?
as far as i can tell it is the promise of long term stability and security updates. and the compatibility.
small businesses who can't afford a RHEL license but need that kind of promise without the other support features that red hat offers. or they develop applications that need to be able to run on RHEL. there is a market for that, and the current CentOS stream or any distribution based on it can't make the same promise as a clone.
but time will tell, alternative distributions based on CentOS stream previously didn't exist. there is one now, if i read that right, and it should be able to take some of the market that RHEL clones are in. and maybe eventually also show that their releases have an almost equal level of longterm stability and updates, as well as sufficient RHEL compatibility.
the only drawback of a distribution based on stream is the security updates that don't come until they are in RHEL. but then how long should it take for an RHEL security update to make it into CentOS stream?