News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A response to the git.centos.org changes. Parent comment

Re:A response to the git.centos.org changes by jacooper on Monday June 26, 2023 @05:10PM (#36485908)
If you've read the article, its clearly stated that many more people were just using CentOS as free RHEL, never needing to pay anything because it gives them everything they need for free.

It wasn't worth putting up with so many free users for a paid product, just to have a small minority actually pay anything.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A response to the git.centos.org changes by prepend on Tuesday June 27, 2023 @12:30AM (#36488934)
> It wasn't worth putting up with so many free users for a paid product, just to have a small minority actually pay anything.

It used to be worth it for 20+ years. Now something changed.

For my servers I used to use 95% centos, 5% rhel. Now I’ll use 0% rhel.

I didn’t need support for most servers but I liked having comparability for when things grew into needing it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A response to the git.centos.org changes by bonzini on Tuesday June 27, 2023 @02:16AM (#36489473)
Have you considered the developer team license, the UBI, CentOS Stream? If none of them work for you, either there is a hole that Red Hat would like to be closed or you were already violating the support agreement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A response to the git.centos.org changes by apple4ever on Thursday June 29, 2023 @12:01PM (#36522257)
Probably the reason is licensing is a pain, and its not true "zero-cost" in that case. CentOS then Rocky/Alma removed that issue.

RH doesn't understand this.

[ Parent | on HN ]