It's not a totally different distro, it's a different variant of the same distro. Back when I was on the release team I would create builds, release them in CentOS Stream 8, then a few months later release them in CentOS Linux 8. It was the same content on a different schedule, released once it passed QA rather than batching up most updates into minor versions.
CentOS Stream has major versions and EOL dates, and thus is not a rolling release. It functions as the RHEL major version branch and follows the RHEL compatibility rules, so it's the same major version stability as RHEL.
While you may have considered bug-for-bug compatibility the main feature, it was a major point of frustration for many users and the maintainers. That model means you can't fix any bugs or accept contributions from the community. CentOS finally fixed both problems by moving to the Stream model.
CentOS Stream has major versions and EOL dates, and thus is not a rolling release. It functions as the RHEL major version branch and follows the RHEL compatibility rules, so it's the same major version stability as RHEL.
While you may have considered bug-for-bug compatibility the main feature, it was a major point of frustration for many users and the maintainers. That model means you can't fix any bugs or accept contributions from the community. CentOS finally fixed both problems by moving to the Stream model.
It warms my heart to see someone else recognize this. The bug-for-bug model that classic CentOS Linux followed was fundamentally broken. Sure there were lots of consumers, but without the ability to fix bugs or accept contributions it was dysfunctional. The underlying motivation of the CentOS Stream changes was resolving this conflict, so that bugs can be fixed and contributions can be merged, resulting in a more sustainable distro.
Each version of CentOS Stream is maintained for about 5.5 years, plenty to qualify as an LTS and significantly longer than Fedora (the base for non-LTS Bluefin).
> Heaven forbid you run RHEL on RHEL in containers, you’re gonna get fleeced.
You can run unlimited RHEL containers on a subscribed RHEL system. It's even set up where if you run a UBI container (a redistributable subset of RHEL content) on a subscribed RHEL system it automatically upgrades to full RHEL.
> Around the same time, Red Hat discontinued its free Red Hat Linux and replaced it with the paid-for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the free, unsupported Fedora Core.
This is a common misconception. RHEL and RHL co-existed for a bit. The first two releases of RHEL (2.1 and 3) were based on RHL releases (7.2 and 9). What was going to be RHL 10 was rebranded and released as Fedora Core 1. Subsequent RHEL releases were then based on Fedora Core, and later Fedora.
IMHO a summary a few paragraphs long of a decade of events in a complex industry must simplify matters.
Sure, there was overlap. Lots of overlap. You highlight one. Novell bought SUSE, but that was after Cambridge Technology Partners (IIRC) bought Novell, and after that, then Attachmate bought the result...
But you skip over that.
I think as a compressed timeline summary, mine was fair enough.
It is really important historical contact that KDE is the reason that both Mandrake and GNOME exist, and it's rarely mentioned now. Mandrake became Mandriva then died, but the distros live on and PC LinuxOS in particular shows how things should have gone if there was less Not-Invented-Here Syndrome.
I don't think "well, actually, this happened before that" is as important, TBH.
It's pretty common to reply to specific aspects of a comment. That's what the markdown quote notation is for (even if it doesn't render properly on this site).
> I think as a compressed timeline summary, mine was fair enough.
But it's not merely compressed, it's factually incorrect.
> I don't think "well, actually, this happened before that" is as important, TBH.
That tracks considering you write for a tabloid with a tumultuous relationship with accuracy.
Then why does this article give "special thanks" to Fedora, but not Red Hat? Or point out the fact that the vast majority of the Fedora RISC-V porting work is being done by Red Hat employees?
Ubuntu Pro and RHEL are both 10 years for their standard lifecycle, with optional add-ons to go longer. Ubuntu's is called "Legacy Support" to get an extra 2 years, RHEL's is called "Extended Life-cycle Support" to get an extra 3-4 years.
https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms