59
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] anothermember@feddit.uk 77 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Paying for services isn't philosophically incompatible with FOSS, that's how companies like RedHat broke through back in the day, but paying for "quick and high-quality security updates" strikes me as alarming. Am I to take from that that they're holding back high-quality security updates from some users? Unless maybe we're talking about extended support for EoL software.

[-] bobo1900@startrek.website 4 points 1 day ago

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but RedHat also had more recent updates compared to CentOS, while also being certified.

[-] anothermember@feddit.uk 6 points 1 day ago

None of this affects what happened "back in the day" which is what I was talking about.

That said, my understanding of the current packaging philosophy of RHEL/CentOS Stream is that embargoed security fixes go in to RHEL first, then to CentOS Stream once the embargo is lifted (that's pretty much as you'd expect), otherwise everything goes in to CentOS Stream first. Unless you have counter-examples I've not heard of?

load more comments (8 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
59 points (92.8% liked)

Linux

11364 readers
899 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS