So then what's the point of mentioning Rocky as CentOS's successor ? In what way is it 'succeeding' ? That you can do a fresh install of Rocky ? And those stuck on CentOS can't upgrade ? Really useful those decades of support if your distro goes belly up
You don’t know this ecosystem, clearly. I’m not going to explain it to you much more than I did.
Centos was the free version of red hat. Like redhat, centos never fucking ever offered in-place upgrades. Centos moved to stream as a sandbox for redhat, and rocky took over as the free redhat.
Ask an LLM or something, this level of ignorance is unbecoming.
You should go re-read this. All I said was I hated ubuntu. I don't even know what paradigm you're inquiring from at this point, and I have no clue how to answer your question.
We were never in agreement or disagreement. You've been arguing against a stance I don't have.
BSDs are cool. They pushed the OS ball forward on server/home computing, video game consoles, etc. Linux is also cool, they pushed the OS ball forward on server/home computing, video game consoles, etc.
There is a long and storied history of computer operating systems. This conversation has shown me you're not aware of said history. You should go learn yourself up some.
You actually said Rocky was a successor to CentOS as well, which is what I responded to. As someone that tried to upgrade CentOS to Rocky, I can tell you that it may succeed it in name only, if that's what you meant. Physically you have to start over. If you re-read my first reply, I said as much originally.
Weird, I feel I'm talking to an LLM with a limited context window.
>>Centos didn’t go away. It changed. Rocky (et. al.) took the old centos role, and >>I see this as a win/win for everybody.
>>Ubuntu is the disaster Linux distro, I won’t touch Ubuntu if I have any other >>option.
