Talk:CentOS

"Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux"

There seems to be a bit of an edit war over whether the family for CentOS should be "Unix-like" or "Based on Red Hat Linux". Personally, I prefer "Unix-like", because the body of the article already explains how it's based on RedHat, and "Unix" seems to be a pretty good description of what CentOS is. Thoughts? Samboy (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the family should be "Linux", because that is what the base of the OS is. "Unix-like" seems a bit too obscure IMHO. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

After viewing a dozen articles for the most popular distributions, as well as four major BSD variants, there doesn't seem to be any clear standard. The most popular value is "Unix-like", but not by an overwhelming amount (perhaps 50%?). I believe my vote goes to "Linux, Unix-like". UncleverOnion (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the expression be chosen by semantics or correctnes instead of popularity? If CentOS uses a Linux Kernel isn't it just Linux. And maybe in the article about Linux there should be written that Linux is Unix-like? That would be some kind of a recursive definition. Just an proposal. ẼDIT: Just saw that this discussion is maybe a bit outdated.--79.226.153.33 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proprietary up2date and yum-plguins?

As a result of a previous discussion the article was changed in April to read: "Red Hat includes proprietary software to access the Red Hat Network (up2date in older versions, yum with custom plugins in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5) for managing software installation." Sorry, but this is not correct, both are GPL'ed just like the whole RHN. Grab the srpm from , extract it and take a look at the headers of the source code:

# Copyright (c) 2001-2002 Red Hat, Inc. Distributed under GPL.

Same for yum-rhn-plugin :

# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify

# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or

# (at your option) any later version.

Can somebody please fix this? --80.143.239.60 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Yworo (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lance open letter stuff

I removed this line because it sounded subjective, no citation, weasel words, and for all I know... not even necessarily true (I could go on.): As of right now, in the public eye, Lance's credibility and potential for being trusted for involvement in future business endeavors is on the chopping block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.25.19 (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Right here. 71.234.145.90 (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know the open letter existed, but it was the question of Lance's credibility and trust being on the chopping blank "in the public eye". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.25.19 (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Came here looking for info on what was obliquely referred to as "the CentOS debacle" on some site. I'll try to add a brief section which is more objective. --Thomas B♘talk 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording is very important because of WP:BLP issues. Samboy (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

link RHEL <-> regular Redhat/Fedora releases

It would be nice to document the Redhat/Fedora release on which a RHEL version is based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.176.30 (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny Citation

Citation 36 links back to the same article... Always bad to use circular reasoning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.85.9 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation?

I've heard it as sen-tos and sent-oh-ess. 173.9.10.235 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be "sent-oh-ess". A colleague of mine went to a Red Hat conference in London recently (June 2014) and said that the Red Hat representatives were pronouncing it sent-oh-ess. Unfortunately I don't have a URL reference for that :-) Gareth.randall (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this YouTube video can help. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Delay column

What exactly does the delay column mean? The delay in releasing the distribution? What about updates? - Letsbefiends (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Popularity

Quote: In July 2010, CentOS overtook Debian to become the most popular Linux distribution for web servers, with almost 30% of all Linux web servers using it,[5] although Debian retook the lead in January 2012

Really? C'mon, quit lying about Debian, CentOS, whatever. NO ONE has a clue to "which OS is most popular". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.18.173.105 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph. Lmatt (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Is CentOS Logo free or non-free?

I know that an Image:CentOS_full_logo.svg is registered in "non-free". However, there is clear statement of Creative Commons as far as I look at the applicable site:

• Graphics and Artwork
• Logo

If this is right, it is necessary to change the license of the picture file definitely. This greatly influences an exhibition to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia of other languages in particular. I demand comment and the support of user everybody. --志賀 慶一 Keiichi SHIGA (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed the licensing info of tjis file and uploaded this file in Wikimedia Commons. If you notice that a procedure has a problem, please revise it definitely. --志賀 慶一 Keiichi SHIGA (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the license change. I was not sure at the time whether the logo was free or non-free. I couldnt find a license for centos artwork, but you are right. The logo seems to be free under the GPL license (based on the artwork license). Thank you for the change and move to Wikimedia Commons. If you are still not sure, you can always file a bug report about the CentOS logo and contact the centos artwork team. (Sav_vas) Thank you for the change and move to Wikimedia Commons. (Sav_vas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.89.145 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No white box?

I was always under the impression that CentOS was a continuation of the White Box project. Never heard of cAos linux before. Gigs (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, White Box and CAOS merged. There's more context in [interview]. I'd edit the article myself, but apparently Quetstar thinks I can't be neutral. rbowen2000 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Architectures

The architectures section would benefit from a table showing which processor architectures are supported by which CentOS versions, so that people can see with which version an architecture became supported and with which version it lost support. Could someone in the know replace the existing list with such a table? FreeFlow99 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Please see the (collapsed by default, as it otherwise makes the article less readable) table in CentOS § CentOS releases section, it should be exactly what you're asking for. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fedora (operating system)#Architectures mentions Pidora as the "specialized Fedora distribution for the Raspberry Pi" prior to official support for ARM-hfp (eg RPi2); neither CentOS nor RHEL mention RedSleeve as the specialized EL7.1 distribution for the Raspberry Pi prior to official support for ARMv7hf. Can we add it to either or both pages? Fedora / YellowDog / RHEL / CentOS / SciLinux distributions for the older ARMel, or Raspberry Pi, or Excito Bubba3, etc. hardware are scarce and that makes them very difficult to discover if they don't get a mention from articles on the major industrial distributions where everybody naturally heads to when searching for "but can I get this for my Raspberry Pi?" 110.146.159.51 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

2 ≠ 3 mistake

The Repositories section states, "There are two primary CentOS repositories," but the list that follows has three items. My first thought was to edit the page to say three instead of two, but then I thought there might be some distinction that I'm not aware of. One of those three might not belong. Could someone with knowledge on the topic look at this? un4v41l48l3 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for pointing it out, got it fixed by changing "two" to "three". It might be debatable how much the addons repository makes up the CentOS distribution, as it is no longer used in CentOS 6 and 7; the footnote I've added should be clear enough, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The last 6 days someone who is not registered keeps changing CentOS verion 8 from latest, still supported version to Old unsupported version. This is factually incorrect. CentOS will receive normal updates for another whole year. Supports ends in decenber 2021, not This december. Can we make this stop, please? Maybe by protecting this page from edits by unregistered users for a week or two? Solbu (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You get what you pay for

Centos was free, so i expected it to end dev anytime — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)  

CentOS Stream

Are there any plans to update the article to describe the recent decision to terminate CentOS 8 in favor of CentOS Stream?

See [1]

Seldenball (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• I see that’s happened in the “history” section. Thanks.

Seldenball (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, I attempted to clarify some of the misinformation in that part of the article, and it was unceremoniously reverted, with no reason given. And while I've come to expect this from Wikipedia, this is, in fact, my area of expertise, and my job, as you can see at [[2]]. My edits were uncontroversial and didn't go into opinion or interpretation - just facts. But apparently someone wanted a better story, even if it's not true. Very disappointing. rbowen2000 17:29, 11 February 2021

I reverted it due to WP:NPOV Quetstar (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not "neutral" to claim that the CentOS Project has been terminated. It is, rather, false. The CentOS project has multiple outputs and one of them has been discontinued. Therefore, the change I made was correcting an error. The article now, once again, contains false information. Calling that "neutral" is sophistry, at best. The notion that I cannot tell the truth because I work for Red Hat is bizarre, particularly when the change i made is unambiguously true, and, meanwhile, I left other things in the article that are *clearly* opinion. rbowen2000 13:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IBM/Red Hat edits

Commercial advertisements are not allowed . All your edits are going to be reverted!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xose.vazquez (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Xose.vazquez, my edits you reverted were not "commercial advertisements". They were factual and written from a neutral point of view. If you disagree, please discuss it here on the talk page so we can come to an agreement on the best possible phrasing. Blindly reverting edits out of spite and emotion is not ok. Reverting multiple edits is like you did is also a violation of the 3RR rule.[3] Carlwgeorge (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, “CentOS” is synonymous with CentOS Linux, so I am going to make sure this article stays as is. Quetstar (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that CentOS is synonymous with CentOS Linux, but the proper name of the distribution is CentOS Linux. Refusing to describe it accurately could be interpreted as a trademark violation. Wikipedia and its editors do not determine proper usage of the trademark, the trademark holder does. Would you be amenable to the phrasing "CentOS Linux (commonly referred to as just CentOS)"? Carlwgeorge (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope. “CentOS” means CentOS Linux and that's final. You’re also an RH employee who has made multiple comments on Twitter defending Red Hat’s decision, which makes you biased. Your argument about the trademark doesn’t stand either, because RH does not determine what CentOS means, the community does. And it has already decided that CentOS means one thing, and that’s not the project or Stream. That thing is CentOS Linux. Quetstar (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not final. You are not the arbiter of this. Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your personal vendetta. I'm happy to get the admins involved here if we need dispute resolution, but I'd prefer to handle it ourselves. My employment status is irrelevant when it comes to provable facts. I've publicly stated I dislike the Linux/Stream split and have been openly critical of how Red Hat decided to handle this. It should have been done entirely at a major version without the split, but unfortunately that's not how things happened. That doesn't change the fact that CentOS the project produces two Linux distributions, CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream, and having a consistent way to clearly describe the two distributions is necessary. Carlwgeorge (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is about CentOS Linux, not Stream. Therefore it should remain as is, with the article describing CentOS Linux, with Stream being relegated to a footnote. Quetstar (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is already about CentOS (the project), CentOS (the distribution, officially CentOS Linux), CentOS Stream, and CentOS SIGs. All of these things are appropriate for this article, because they are all part of CentOS (the project). Furthermore, from CS9 going forward, CentOS Stream will be the only CentOS operating system. There will be no more need to distinguish between two operating systems. I'm hopeful that one day the Stream suffix can be dropped, because in practice few people will use it, just like they didn't use the Linux suffix. They will just refer to the distribution as CentOS as they always have. For these reasons, creating a separate page for CentOS Stream is not a good idea. I don't know why your goal is to "make sure this article stays as is", but that is against the spirit of Wikipedia. I am going to continue to make edits to the article. If you feel any of these edits are not factual or demonstrate bias, please discuss it here on this page, because I would like to come to agreement on them. My goal is not to defend the project's decision to end CL8 earlier than expected, but rather to have a factual article free of all bias, including from those upset by the decision. Carlwgeorge (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

“The project’s decision?” Ha! Red Hat was the one who ended CentOS. That stupid and illegitimate “governing board” signed off on it without the community’s consent, which led it to create Rocky and Alma to replace CentOS as the free downstream RHEL. Quetstar (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Quetstar, please stop blinding reverting my edits. Tell me what is wrong with them so I can improve them. I would like to collaborate with you but you are making it quite difficult. Carlwgeorge (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because I felt they were controversial. I also wanted (and still want) the article to uphold the community line, not one tainted by Red Hatters. Quetstar (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please explain how they are controversial. I would like to add factual information to the CentOS Stream "footnote", and if there is a better way I can phrase it I'm happy to discuss. For posterity, here[4] is an example of something User:Quetstar reverted. Everything I added or changed is factual and provable, phrased in the most neutral way I can come up with. Carlwgeorge (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The edits you made are something a Red Hatter would say, not a community member. Furthermore, the text of the CentOS Stream section before your changes, which described it as a midstream rolling release, was appropriate due to it being clear and concise. Quetstar (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Quetstar's comments here clearly demonstrate that they are completely ignorant not only of what happened, but about the project in general, and merely has a personal vendetta that they wish to pursue. Making an ad hominem attack against the board of directors is unwarranted and libelous, and further shows ignorance of how the governance of the project works, and has worked for 15+ years. Can we please stop this nonsense? Rbowen2000 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Bias

Wikipedia has a documented procedure for addressing bias.[5] Failure to follow this procedure will be reported to the admins. Carlwgeorge (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to remind other editors of this page that a conflict of interest is not the same thing as bias.[6] I have disclosed my own COI on my user page using the Template:UserboxCOI. Carlwgeorge (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case you should not be editing the article directly, but should make edit requests here on the talk page and let other uninvolved editors decide whether to add them to the article. CodeTalker (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CentOS Stream edit

I want to edit the section describing CentOS stream to read the following:

“CentOS Stream is a rolling release Linux distribution midstream between the upstream development in Fedora and the downstream development for RHEL. The initial release was based on CentOS Linux 8 software packages the project was building with the latest RHEL 8 development kernel.”

Any more ideas? Quetstar (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read this article - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-should-have-already-been-centos-stream-back-2019-smith/ - which talks, in part, about why the "rolling release" name is inaccurate, or, at least, misleading. FWIW, that is written by someone who is NOT a Red Hat employee, and not involved in the CentOS Stream effort. I would also ask what point you're trying to make with the second sentence, as it no longer reflects the current state of the project. Rbowen2000 (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

What i really want to do is to restore the section back to its original state (that is before the edits by Carl). Quetstar (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's what you want to do, but since it's more accurate now than it was then, I'm unclear *why* you want to do that. What was there before was *false* and what is there now is *true*. Surely, truth is the goal here, isn't it? Rbowen2000 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The edits were made in violation of Wikipedia's COI policy, so i am going to restore the original text and work from there. Quetstar (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your passion for rules over truth is commendable. Congratulations. Rbowen2000 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Too bad, the text reflects the community definition and is therefore true. I am going to make sure the text stays as is until the community (and I mean CentOS users, not that worthless “governing board”) decides otherwise, but because of how the decision was made by that crappy “board”, (It was made in November, at an executive meeting you attended in your capacity as the CentOS CM, but only announced in December, a month later, after which the board ran away like spoiled brats instead of doing a Q&A immediately after the news and face the backlash from the community.) that’s unlikely to happen. Quetstar (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this additional commentary. It clearly demonstrates that this is a personal vendetta, and not any interest in truth or accuracy. Which, of course, we already knew. Rbowen2000 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CentOS Linux 8.4.2105 release

• Specific text to be added or removed:

Please add this row to the chart under "Latest version information".

Current stable version: 8.4-2105	x86_64, ppc64le, aarch64	8.4	4.18.0-305	2021-06-03	2021-05-18	16

• Reason for the change: CentOS Linux 8.4.2105 release
• References supporting change: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2021-June/048316.html

Carlwgeorge (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Quetstar (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Working State

Presently the article states that CentOS (Linux) is in a singularly discontinued state. I believe this doesn't properly reflect the development status of the distribution as it is not in its "active discontinuation" but in simultaneous states between the multiple "sub"-projects.

CentOS Linux 8 is slated for a future discontinuation of 31 Dec 2021, however the development team is and will actively maintain the distribution until that time arrives.

CentOS Linux 7 is still actively maintained and will continue to be so for the original designated lifecycle of RHEL 7, which will end 30 June 2024. The final CentOS Linux 7 updates will likely arrive around that date as the RHEL product shifts into its customer only extended support lifecycle.

This approaches a larger topic as to what the purpose of this article should be: CentOS Linux or CentOS the Project. If it is indeed about CentOS Linux, then I have a few suggestions:

• Stream (which is and will remain to be actively developed and maintained) should be split off into an article of its own as it will not align with the "discontinued" designation currently applied to the article.
• The discontinuation status should not be invoked until the EOL of CentOS Linux 7, as that will remain active post-CentOS Linux 8.
• Alternately, the CentOS Project should have its own Wikipedia article.

Personally, I believe the article should be about the Project, as it fully encompasses CentOS Linux, CentOS Stream, the Special Interest Groups, and the community.

At the very least, perhaps multiple status parameters could be used? It would help to differentiate between currently active versions or between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream, i.e.:

| CentOS Stream 8 Status = Active
| CentOS Linux 8 Status = Planned Discontinuation
| CentOS Linux 7 Status = Active

or

| CentOS Stream = Active
| CentOS Linux = Planned Discontinuation

OmenosDev (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is my postion regarding this:

The article's opening paragraph clearly states that CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL. Therefore, the entire article must be solely about the rebuild.

Stream is shrouded in controversy, and the way Red Hatters have promoted it has caused endless arguments and trouble, which is why i purged most mentions of it in the article, except for the history section, last month. Quetstar (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, then staying along that vein you still don't address the problem with the article. Labeling CentOS Linux as discontinued is not accurate as CentOS Linux 7 and 8 are both currently actively maintained. CL8 will cease maintenance after Dec. 31 2021, and CL7 will continue maintenance until sometime Q2/Q3 of 2024. Therefore it is not actively in a discontinued state.

@FMM-1992 has made two edits adjusting the Working State label that you have reverted twice (one removing the label, the other setting it to Maintenance). Though "Maintenance" is closer to reality, CentOS Linux is still actively under maintenance and releasing new versions and will be until the end of CentOS Linux 7. Please change the Working State to reflect that accurately.

OmenosDev (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The "discontinued" label is appropriate for 3 reasons:

CentOS 7 no longer gets point releases,

CentOS 8 will die at the end of the year,

There will not be a CentOS 9.

That approach is similar to the one taken for Scientific Linux, which is discontinued, but still supported until RHEL 7 dies in 2024. Quetstar (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, no problem with "Discontinued", but I have a suggestion to make it better: "Discontinued (under maintenance)", @Quetstar and OmenosDev: what is your viewpoint?--FMM-1992 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Discontinued (under maintenance)" is in my opinion a much better descriptor of the situation of CentOS Linux. It would be a more apt state for projects like Scientific Linux as well.

Though I don't particularly agree with some of @Quetstar's reasoning, "Discontinued (under maintenance)" is a better compromise than anything else I can think of.

---

Discussion points on 8.5.####

https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2021-June/077026.html

> IRC: the current plan is to do 8.5. i've even been told by management that they don't intend to cut us off from finishing it if it's running a little late. OmenosDev (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Using the Discontinued label, without any descriptors, has been Wikipedia policy since forever. So i think it should stay as is until the wider Wikipedia community decides otherwise, but i'm open to any other ideas. Quetstar (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: For those of us that haven't been long-time WP members, do you have a reference or guide you can share related to that policy?

OmenosDev (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It's an unwritten policy that's been in place for years as a result of consensus. Quetstar (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that, if we use "Discontinued", we need to qualify it, because certainly support is not discontinued. I think something like "Development discontinued; supported until ___" would be accurate and concise enough (we certainly need to stay concise in the infobox). Elizium23 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The working state part of the infobox is about the development status of the distro, not support. Quetstar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Quetstar, if the OS is still supported, then it stands to reason there are still developers creating patches for bugs and security issues. That necessarily means development. New features, no. Freshly integrated code, yes. Elizium23 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

i know, but due to the endless trouble this article has gone through (COI edits made without following policy, arguments over the definition of CentOS,etc), i think that the article, including the "discountinued" label, should stay as is until the end of the year. Quetstar (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox OS#Problem with "Working state" parameter before the above comment. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am in favor of this approach to keep the article only about "CentOS Linux", so user:OmenosDev please create an article for "CentOS Stream", and then it is better to rename this article to "CentOS Linux".--FMM-1992 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I can make an attempt at authoring a page just for Stream. It'll be under User:OmenosDev/CentOS Stream.

It would also be worth likely creating a page for the CentOS Project, and put any information not specific to CL or CS (such as the SIGs) in that page.

OmenosDev (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am one of the core developers of CentOS and I'd like to weigh in as a subject matter expert on the working state of the distribution. CentOS is going through a period of transition. There are currently two variants of the distribution. The classic downstream variant ("CentOS Linux"), and the new upstream variant ("CentOS Stream"). Upstream/downstream in this context is relevant to the corresponding major version of RHEL. CentOS major version 7 is only offered in the downstream variant. Major version 8 is offered in both variants. Major version 9 will only be offered in the upstream variant. After all variants of 7 and 8 have reached the end of their respective lifecycles (2024), when people say CentOS, they will be unambiguously referring to new upstream variant (e.g. CentOS 9, CentOS 10, etc). This is a major change by the project, and many people strongly dislike the change. But regardless of popularity, CentOS Stream is not some drastically different thing. It's not a rolling release, despite the initial marketing describing it that way. There are still major versions and EOL dates. The recently released CentOS Linux 8.4 was comprised almost entirely of RPMs that were released within the last six months in CentOS Stream 8. Even now with the updates released in the last week, CentOS Stream 8 is 84% identical to CentOS Linux 8. As this article is about the overall distribution, not a specific version, the working state should be listed as current. I have no issue with the article covering all the messy details of how Red Hat (my employer) botched the execution of this transition, but the article should be accurate that it is a transition, not a discontinuation. I'm sure Quetstar will accuse me of trying to "spin" this for the sake of my employer, but nothing could be further from the truth. I hate how this went down. I hate how advice from engineers like myself was ignored when setting the timelines for the transition. I hate that the new free RHEL offerings weren't ready in time for the announcement. I hate that we didn't start the new variant with major version 9. I hate that EOL date for the downstream variant of 8 was changed. But more than any of that, I hate that the spite and anger over this change is dividing the community and preventing people from working together. Wikipedia doesn't exist to carry out Quetstar's personal vendetta. It doesn't exist to punish Red Hat the company or Red Hat employees for a badly executed change in an open source project. Wikipedia is where people come for information and facts. This article should describe the facts, both good and bad, but it should not manipulate the information or leave things out based on one editor's opinions. Carlwgeorge (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Carlwgeorge First of all, I have no vedetta.

As for leaving things out, i decided, based on its controversial status and wish for it to have its own article in the future, to purge all mentions to Stream last month.

This was not due to any presumed vedetta. It was made in order for the article to be more simpler to read and for it to focus on one thing, which is the rebuild. Quetstar (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, the distribution is transitioning from a downstream rebuild to a real distribution in it's own right that is positioned just upstream from RHEL. Not everyone wants that, and that's ok. There are many options to choose from. But animosity over the transition is not justification to avoid including information about the transition in this article. Carlwgeorge (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Stream will soon get its own article, so i think that including details about the transition is unnecessary. Quetstar (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The upstream variant of CentOS shouldn't be put into it's own article, it belongs in this one. Putting it into a separate article will just result in the articles needing to be merged later on down the road once all of the downstream variants have reached the end of their respective lifecycles. Take a look at the Fedora article, which also lists the different variants (editions and spins) in the same article. Carlwgeorge (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

FMM-1992 and Psypherium (in the OS infobox discussion) have agreed that Stream needs its own article, so i think that this is the proper way to deal with this issue. Also, Fedora is a single distro with different editions, not a 2 distro project. Furthermore, Stream has existed since 2019, while CentOS (the rebuild) has existed since 2004, and was the original focus of the project. Therefore, the rebuild should get the entire article's attention and focus. Quetstar (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I am a laymen here and not a regular wikipedia editor. But I just want to say, that saying CentOS has been discontinued does not make the article "more simpler" to read. Actually it confused the heck out of me since the latest release was earlier this month and all of the CentOS social media accounts and such are still active and taking about new versions and such. Maybe discontinued has a special meaning when used in this field, but for people who aren't experts (presumabely a majority of the people reading this article), 'discontinued' means that the thing the article is about isn't being worked on anymore or that the company working on it no longer exists, and that's pretty clearly not the case.

I actually had to do extra research into this because this wiki article implies something that is, as far as a laymen is concerned, not true. I know the definition of words is malleable, but if you are going to say a thing that is actively being produced is 'discontinued' because of a very technical interpretation of that words meaning, you should explain technical interpretation in the same or following sentence. Otherwise I strongly feel it constitutes misinformation, which is definitely bad for a wikipedia article regardless of circumstances. 98.232.223.204 (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

RHEL statements in Design section

Quetstar: I made a fairly minor edit (but didn't label it as such) updating the following sentence:

"RHEL is available only through a paid subscription service or for development use in a non-production environment[32] – which provides access to software updates and varying levels of technical support."

to

"RHEL is available through a paid subscription service or at no-cost within the constraints of the Red Hat Developer program[32] – which provides access to software updates and varying levels of technical support."

This edit was made because the former sentence is referencing the no-cost subscription available under the RH Developer program which previously only allowed usage in development and non-production environments. Those terms have changed to allow for unrestricted production uses for up to 16 concurrent system activations for most uses, and other terms for other industries (such as academia, research, etc) coming down the line. I didn't specify that number in my edit because it is not/will not be a universal constraint, and have opted for a more encompassing statement. This change was not to create some a spin or hide some kind of catch with the program.

I have a few suggestions:

• Redo the edit, or
• Modify the edit with "or for production use at no-cost within...", or
• Remove the RHEL specific sentences in Design entirely, they aren't necessary to the article.

For the latter, it could read something like this:

" <snip two starting sentences>

CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code (available on the CentOS Pagure instance and GitLab) to create a final product very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's branding and logos are changed because Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.[33] CentOS is available free of charge. Technical support is primarily provided by the community via official mailing lists, web forums, and chat rooms.

The project is affiliated with Red Hat but aspires to be more public, open, and inclusive. While Red Hat employs most of the CentOS head developers, the CentOS project itself relies on donations from users and organizational sponsors.[9] " OmenosDev (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The way the changes to the dev program happened, that is in a shroud of controversy surrounding CentOS, made the edit impossible to keep. So, in order to keep the article out of trouble, I reverted your edit and i am going to keep the text as is. Quetstar (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the Developer program are not shrouded in any controversy. It was clearly announced that future changes to the Developer program were going to occur on the day of the original announcement regarding the future termination of CentOS Linux 8. Then, as previously mentioned, changes to the Developer program were released, which is the updated ref my edit linked to. Those changes made it explicitly clear that subscriptions under the Developer program can now be used for production purposes.

By reinstating the prior text, rather than keeping or altering my edit, you are intentionally providing false and outdated information to readers of the article. As I didn't want to remove any parts of the article with my edit, I opted to update that specific piece of information. I stand behind my third suggestion that the two sentences about RHEL be removed as they offer nothing of substance or relevance to the article.

Would you mind explaining what "trouble" you think you're keeping the article out of by providing misinformation?

OmenosDev (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

First, i just edited the article to remove the 2 RHEL sentences, consistent with your 3rd suggestion.

Now for the trouble, for over a month between February and March 2021, I had to revert multiple edits made by Red Hatters, which were basically attempts to spin the article. It got so bad that an admin had to intervene. After his intervention, peace returned to the article, enabling me to refocus it on the rebuild. Quetstar (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The only reason "peace returned" was because your behavior has all but killed my desire to contribute to Wikipedia. You clearly care more about expressing your personal vendetta through this article than I care about adding facts to it. I'd like to contribute to it, but you make that impossible with your rule breaking (3RR) behavior. Once I learned about the COI policy, I disclosed my COI and have followed the rules regarding edit requests. You on the other hand have been warned multiple times about the 3RR rule, and continue to ignore it. Carlwgeorge (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have never violated the 3RR rule. If I had breached it, I would have long been reported to the admins. Quetstar (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I mixed you up with Xose.vasquez. That said, I confused y'all because you have both been reverting worthwhile edits out of spite. You were warned on your talk page. Carlwgeorge (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Requested move 8 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Quetstar (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

---

CentOS → CentOS Linux – The CentOS Project offers 2 Linux distros: "CentOS Linux" and "CentOS Stream", please check https://centos.org/distro-faq/ , https://centos.org/about/ , https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General , and https://centos.org/ -- per this and also since there is a consensus to keep this article only about "CentOS Linux" and there is need to a standalone and different article for "CentOS Stream", this article should be renamed to "CentOS Linux", thanks. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE #1:

WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."

By searching the Google, I could find the following for "CentOS Linux", however there were much more than these, I just mention some of those, please search it yourself to see all of them:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/where-centos-linux-users-can-go-from-here/

"Where CentOS Linux users can go from here Upset about what's happened with CentOS Linux?

Top companies that rely on CentOS Linux include Disney, GoDaddy, RackSpace, Toyota, and Verizon."

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/centos-shifts-from-red-hat-unbranded-to-red-hat-beta/

"CentOS Linux is dead

CentOS Linux will be sleeping with the fishes in 2022.

a massive change in the future and function of CentOS Linux.

Moving forward, there will be no CentOS Linux—instead, there will (only) be CentOS Stream.

Goodbye CentOS Linux, hello CentOS Stream

who isn't happy about Red Hat's decision to shutter CentOS Linux."

https://www.fedramp.gov/2021-03-30-CentOS-Linux-End-of-Life/ (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP))

"JAB Guidance on CentOS Linux End of Life"

https://www.cs.washington.edu/lab/linux/centos

"CentOS Linux at CSE"

-- FMM-1992 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose : CentOS is rarely refered to as "CentOS Linux", so i think it should stay as is. Quetstar (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

see https://distrowatch.com/CentOS --FMM-1992 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

i know, but i speak from a community standpoint, not an official one. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as well as common name. Even if moved as proposed CentOS would remain a redirect to CentOS Linux per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, so there is no point. CentOS Stream doesn’t even have its own article, but even if it did, the primary topic for CentOS would remain here. So if there ever is a CentOS Stream there should simply be a hatnote link at the top of this article to there. —В²C ☎ 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose CentOS is one distribution with an upstream and a downstream variant. Both should be covered by this article. There is no benefit in separating them into their own articles. Carlwgeorge (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose let's not fork this all prematurely. Elizium23 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose remember WP:RF. I'm not at all interested in a discussion between CentOS Linux purists and RH advocates and I doubt that many readers unfamiliar with the topic will be either. Those in the know (and I've run CentOS systems from 2010 until I switched to Alma last month) understand the fine detail, but a reader trying to find out what CentOS is will be mislead if we pretend CentOS Stream doesn't exist. We need a clear lead which states that CL is a Linux distro based upon RH. From it's inception it rebuilt RHEL sources but since 2021 is transitioning to be RHEL+0.1 This can be expanded in the introductory/history first paragraph, along with mention of reactions. Like it or not, "the community" and "the project" lost control when RH took over CentOS and are now an essential part of the history but not the future. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

separate article for CentOS Stream or Inclusion of it into this article?

Me and OmenosDev were agree to create a separate article for CentOS Stream, but because my request to move/rename this article to CentOS Linux was faild and because User:Carlwgeorge is an employee of Red Hat and works on CentOS, per what he said:

"The upstream variant of CentOS shouldn't be put into it's own article, it belongs in this one. Putting it into a separate article will just result in the articles needing to be merged later on down the road once all of the downstream variants have reached the end of their respective lifecycles. Take a look at the Fedora article, which also lists the different variants (editions and spins) in the same article."

I changed my mind and now I think CentOS Stream should be *fully covered* only in this article, but, one user, User:Quetstar has stated in #Working_State:

"The article's opening paragraph clearly states that CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL. Therefore, the entire article must be solely about the rebuild.
Stream is shrouded in controversy, and the way Red Hatters have promoted it has caused endless arguments and trouble, which is why i purged most mentions of it in the article, except for the history section, last month."

and it now only / mostly provides information about CentOS Linux, so I think there is need to a consensus here. FMM-1992 (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned it before in the Working State discussion, but I am also in favor of keeping everything on one page. I agreed to the creation of a separate page as it seemed to be the compromise that was necessary for further discussion on the state situation. The CentOS Project started with the initial goal of creating an operating system. It has expanded quite a bit since 2004 to the creation of two distributions and quite a few special interest groups and a broader community.

The page would need some rearchitecting, such as major (overarching) sections to cover the different areas (i.e. CentOS Linux, CentOS Stream, Community+SIGs), and would effectively turn the page into a CentOS Project page, rather than CentOS Linux page + extras (though the content would still be, well, Linux). The InfoBox could also make use of the "support_status" parameter as documented by the template to handle the different distributions and versions.

Touching on the Stream content, I'm still open to making an authoring attempt for peer review that could be placed in such a section, I just haven't had the time as of late to put it to paper. I have the sections planned and ideated, though.

OmenosDev (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on the community's reaction to the annoucement on the CentOS mailing lists and blog, Reddit, as well as Red Hat's blog, i concluded that the community definition of things is that;

CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL,

CentOS has been discontinued,

Stream is a beta-grade rolling release,

Stream is not a replacement for CentOS, as stated by Red Hat's CTO on the RH blog.

Therefore, the ultimate conclusion is that CentOS has been discontinued without a replacement.

As a result, IMO, Stream deserves no coverage or mention in the CentOS article under any circumstances whatsoever. Instead, it should have its own article. Quetstar (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

CentOS Linux is/was a rebuild of RHEL,

CentOS Linux 8.x has been discontinued,

CentOS Stream is a beta-grade rolling release,

CentOS Stream is not a replacement for CentOS, as stated by Red Hat's CTO on the RH blog.

Therefore, the ultimate conclusion is that CentOS Linux has been discontinued without a replacement

As a result the article needs to clearly inform the reader (WP:RF) what the difference is between the Stream and Linux variants. This article is not about "the community" (which is now the property of RH/IBM), it is to answer the question "what is CentOS?". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What is CentOS? It's one of most divisive and controversial questions I've ever faced, so i don't know what to say. Quetstar (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Quetstar Your interpretation ("i concluded") of the community reaction does not represent the "ultimate conclusion". You're willfully ignoring the members of the community that see things differently ([7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]). When community members have tried to edit this article to represent other interpretations [18][19][20], you've reverted those edits without discussion [21][22][23], just barely avoiding violating WP:3RR by spreading the reverts over multiple days rather than in a single 24 hour period. Your choice of language around what "Stream deserves" further demonstrates your personal vendetta and your inability to follow WP:NPOV. Carlwgeorge (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

My conclusion is based on the reactions of the majority, not the minority which you have cited. Furthermore, I reverted the edits you cited because they were blatant violations of NPOV (Phil cited himself in them), and I myself strive to enforce it. Also, when there is a disagreement on WP, its users hash it out in order to reach consensus. My opinion, as well as the others, will go towards that consensus, and I intend to apply it. Finally, I have absolutely no vendetta, it's just that I am direct when i express my opinions. Quetstar (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In one of your reverts you claimed that "The community responses were all negative." [24], yet now you claim it's just the majority (not the same thing), while not citing anything to back up your claim. The reactions were mixed, but there is no objective measurement to say which reactions were the majority or minority. Even the metric you suggested in another revert, the mailing list [25], represents an absurdly small percentage of the CentOS community. This really isn't as difficult as you are making it. Both positive and negative reactions to the changes in the distribution should be represented in this article. At least now you are acknowledging that you are expressing your opinions. Would you please leave your opinions out of this so the article can be more objective? Carlwgeorge (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

To be blunt; it doesn't matter a flying fig what "the community's" response is, this article is Wikipedia's article, not "the community's". The situation is analogous to biographies, they must be fair, sourced and yet are independent of the subject's wishes. Other companies have negative things written about them, see for example BP, but if the sources are there and the facts are defensible then the article gets written. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinions are a critical aspect of consensus making, so i will continue to express them here. Quetstar (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the complete lack of mention of CentOS Stream is an issue. I just got an email from an Oracle sales guy telling me CentOS was cancelled and that I should talk to him about switching to Oracle Linux. I knew about the change to Stream, but that's not necessarily "cancelled" to me so I checked here to see if there was news I wasn't aware of. This article states "Red Hat unilaterally terminated CentOS development" which at first glance supports his "CentOS is cancelled" statement. Regardless of my opinion of Stream, I think that both statements are disingenuous and misleading (intentionally so from the Oracle guy). I see from this Talk that this topic is a battlefield, but I think that some mention of Stream would help disprove such misleading statements. Perhaps changing "terminated" to "superseded by Stream", or something like that. No emotion or corporate spin, just fact. Marquismark79 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly the WP:RF issue that I've tried to highlight. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Quetstar isn't interested in truth, but, rather, in pushing a specific narrative based on his/her hurt feelings and grief at the passing of CentOS Linux. The official CentOS project position, and the statement by the board of directors, is that we've discontinued CentOS Linux in order to focus on CentOS Stream. Quetstar's refusal to allow edits to this effect stand, is a huge disservice to anyone trying to find out truth. Carl and I have both attempted to correct the lies in this article, and our edits are repeatedly reverted. At some point, one must move on to productive work. But, yeah, it would be nice if this article could reflect reality, rather than ... whatever you call what's there now. Rbowen2000 (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, everything you said about me is absolutely not true. I relentlessly pursue the truth, no matter how to describe it.

The reason why I reverted both you and Carl is because the edits concerned were made in violation of the COI policy, which states that those in conflict of interest should submit an edit request. If an ER was made pursuant to that policy, I would gladly consider it. Quetstar (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to you to "consider" the edits of others, as this is not your article to consider. I've restored one of the edits you reverted, as there was no valid edit summary given for its removal, and it appears to be relevant and belongs on the article, not least of all because, according to the discussions on the talk page thus far, consensus appears to be against you regarding its inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoidh I was talking about COI edit requests, not those made by regular users. Quetstar (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You've reverted numerous edits that removes the false "discontinued" status or discusses the changes in CentOS, the benefits of the changes, and positive reactions to the changes, regardless of the editor's COI status. To be 100% clear, many of the edits you reverted were from users with no COI. It's obvious that any edit you don't like, regardless of whether it happens via the edit request process or not, COI or not, will be reverted by you without discussion. You've effectively taken over this article and driven away people that want to contribute to it. I would love to suggest changes to the article about Stream via the edit request process, but I don't believe that you would allow those edits to stand, even if multiple other editors are in favor of the changes. Carlwgeorge (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Since this is a huge case of dispute and trouble, I am going to move on from the article for a while. (BTW, i restored the working state back to Current.) Quetstar (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

CentOS Stream is not a Rolling Release

The lede says While the distribution will be discontinued at the end of 2021, development of its rolling release variant continues.

• The ARS citation ref says rolling preview not rolling release.
• The CentOS FAQ citation does not mention anything about "rolling release".
• There is no provided way to upgrade from CentOS Stream 8 to CentOS Stream 9 which indicates that it not a rolling release.

References

Jamplevia (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jamplevia: The CentOS website says that Stream is a "continuously delivered distro", which is basically synonymous with rolling release. The fact that there is no upgrade path from Stream 8 to 9 doesn't mean its not a rolling release. Furthermore, Stream frequently gets updates and as far as im aware, the frequency of those is similar to other rolling distros such as Arch Linux. Quetstar (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

* Using the CentOS web site to support things about CentOS fails WP:SPS.

* Please show me a reliable source that says a "continuously delivered distro" is a synonym for "rolling release". Fails WP:NOR.

* Your example, Arch Linux, never gets into a state where it can't be upgraded the way that Stream 8 to Stream 9 is so they are not comparable. Fails WP:V

* What exactly do you mean by 'Stream gets updates at the the same frequency as Arch'? The software package versions on those two distros are mostly different. Fails WP:V

Jamplevia (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This ZDNet article should back most things up. Also, the Wikipedia article about rolling releases has the words "continuous delivery" alongside rolling release. Quetstar (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The article on Zdnet is a better source than the one from Ars which is currently being used to support the statement that Stream 8 is a rolling release so why don't you update the article to use it.

The article about rolling releases says [the]difference would be the multiple versions of Ubuntu Linux versus the single, constantly updated version of Arch Linux. and Stream 8 and Stream 9 are multiple versions so that WP article indicates Stream isn't a rolling release.

I think the main issue is that the term rolling release (distro) is nebulous jargon with no authoritative definition. It might be better to not use that term at all and use exact descriptions of the characteristics of Stream instead.

Jamplevia (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the sourcing on the sentence in question to use the ZDNet source. However, describing Stream would confuse most users due to the various definitions of it, and since it has a lot of things in common with rolling releases (no point releases, updates released as they are ready, potential major version bumps, etc..), I think it should stay as is. Quetstar (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no more potential for major version bumps of software than RHEL itself has (almost non-existent). By definition Stream can't change more than what RHEL would change in a minor release. I see you're still spreading misinformation, even after your break from this article. Carlwgeorge (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carlwgeorge I was not trying to spread misinformation, I was saying what i belived was true info about Stream. Guess I got proven wrong again. Quetstar (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to say that CentOS Stream is a series of rolling releases as CentOS Stream 8 and CentOS Stream 9 are independent, lack support for changing between them and both rolling releases to themselves. -- Jamplevia (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Its somewhat difficult to describe it. I am currently considering restoring the purged Stream section, but with new writing for more clarity and precision. Quetstar (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing references to other RHEL clones

This article is becoming a place for people to put their pitches for other RHEL clones, which is also resulting in edit wars.

• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]

Neither the pitches or the edit warring is appropriate. I suggest we remove all references to other specific RHEL clones from this page, leaving only a link to Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives. Carlwgeorge (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be ALL RHEL clones or NO RHEL clones. Incidentally Springfield also ought to be included if Alma, Oracle and Rocky are. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Springdale doesn't even have an article. As for the other RHEL clones, i think they should stay referenced until consensus emerges on how to treat them. Quetstar (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That's the point of this talk topic, to reach some kind of general agreement. 100% consensus is not a reasonable ask. If the majority of people that reply on this topic agree it makes sense, the edit should be made. I think the logical choice is to reference the Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives article. Is there some specific issue you have with that approach? That other article is a better location for a detailed listing of RHEL clones anyways, and it doesn't make sense to duplicate the listing in this article. Carlwgeorge (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's probably not reasonable to keep allowing this rather bizarre edit war in the CentOS article and just cut it all out in favor of referencing the Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives article instead. Conan_Kudo (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

But that would scrub Alma and Rocky, which were created because of the 2020 announcement, from the article. They would have never existed had not been for it, so i think they should stay referenced. However, I would remove Oracle since it was already in existence when the changes were announced. Quetstar (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If that is your standard, then why haven't you added Anolis OS, Circle Linux, or Navy Linux? From what I can tell they were all started in response to the CentOS shift. Carlwgeorge (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

These distros are not notable, as they are not well known. Including them would bloat the article, so the RHEL derivatives page is suitable for them. Also, I would like to say that removing all mentions of Rocky and Alma, which are the most notable of the pack, would cause balance issues, that is, pushing Stream as the sole replacement, which is not the case as there are other alternatives, thus violating WP:BALANCE and giving undue weight to Stream. Yes, Stream is a legitimate replacement, but its not the only one. Also, no other RHEL rebuild page has a link to the derivatives list, so I think it should be the same here. Quetstar (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Derivative diagram

The diagram is seriously out of date (10 years), particularly with the ending of CentOS and the subsequent rise of a new crop of RHEL derivatives. I woukld suggest that it should be deleted pending a more up to date diagram. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Where is the diagram you're talking about? Quetstar (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies all for the noise. The diagram is at Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives and I copied the comment on without double checking. Mea maxima culpa! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Quetstar (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)