They dont. Most commenters react to the title and preexistent opinions. Rhey frequently misinterpret the article too - misconstructing arguments they dont like and such.
Most commenters react to each other, either to the comment itself or to different interpretations and/or knowledge about the subject of TFA. It is the top level comments that are supposed to react to the article.
I stopped trusting CentOS dates and assumed CentOS 7 was EOL a long time ago because their yum repos were down, or they didn't provide certain updates anymore, or something. I noticed inconsistencies across machines I tried to update simultaneously, noticed there wasn't a common update point available (the machines were on slightly different versions to begin with), and decided it was junk and time to move on.
You're sure that's not simply a matter of the client-side caching having expired on some machines (thus reaching out again for updates) vs. not having expired on other machines (thus not checking the repo a second time)?
Alternatively maybe they were hitting different mirrors. But in either case, that's not an issue with the distribution.
Oh yes, I checked caching, checked that the URLs were official by comparing them to the URLs CentOS canonically suggested, checked that the URLs did include security update repos, definitely dove into commands for "force check updates" type commands and the kernel rpms just weren't there. Old ones, new ones, nothing.
Now I could have made a mistake, and according to the article text CentOS 7 "isn't EOL yet" so if someone has a mirror that does work I'd be interested to see evidence that kernel updates are even available. I'm not checking myself though, I don't trust Oracle enough to risk spending time standing up a CentOS 7 machine.
