Article quite a mess and, honestly, largely devoid of content. For starters, complains that SL should've continued because other community options might eventually be discontinued/change (as happened with CentOS). Like, duh. By this reasoning every effort should be duplicated to guard against the possibility that one option might disappear. In the end though all those RHEL rebuilds depend on Red Hat maintaining RHEL. The article never notes this and indirectly equalizes the effort and existence of a a genuinely independent community-driven distro (Debian, that CERN decided to move their accelerator-control computers) and RHEL rebuild (e.g., AlmaLinux, that CERN will keep the rest of infrastructure on, e.g. data centers, compute farms, etc). And here's the misguided part. If SL as still active it'll have been necessary to recompile numerous upstream RHEL source packages to remove the microarchitecture restrictions. This will've turned SL to entire new, independently maintained distro. The thing they wanted to avoid.
lo and behold, a 1000 word sample comes back in Pangram as AI generated. This should not be worth anyone's time (and maybe you have spent more time on your comment than the author did in their blogpost).
Well, it's not an unreasonable assumption that RHEL will continue to be maintained even if we don't go down the whole CentOS path which I won't on a public forum. But, yes, there are always dependencies. There's certainly no guarantees that any of the ~rebuilds will still be around in n years.
forgotpwd16 · · focus · HN ↗
lhd1 · · focus · HN ↗
applfanboysbgon · · focus · HN ↗
prompter*
exploderate · · focus · HN ↗
ghaff · · focus · HN ↗