On 11/08/2017 03:52 PM, O'Neal, Miles wrote:
> I'm not real sure what this discussion has to do with Scientific Linux, 
> but I'll give this a shot.
> 
> On 11/08/2017 05:25 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote:
>>
>> I can't afford to have my Contacts and Tasks wiped out
>> by the OS being too out of date to accept fixes and
>> an OS vendor that won't fix it.  So it works both ways.
> RedHat is quite up front about the point of RHEL, which is long term 
> stability and support. EL is NOT about being anywhere even close to 
> leading edge, much less bleeding edge. If you buy a heavy duty pickup 
> truck, you do not get (and should not expect) sports car performance.
> 
> We use EL for both servers and workstations in hardware design[1] (and 
> we are not alone in this). That's because that's what the third party 
> tools support. There is no way those vendors can validate complex tool 
> chains against a new build every six months. Yes, we are frustrated that 
> we can't use the latest email client, web browser, or aardvarkial 
> sanitization discomboobulator, but it comes with the turf. Conversely, 
> many software groups prefer something that is very up to date, such as 
> Fedora, Ubuntu, etc. They need a sports car, and recognize they can't 
> haul a half ton microscope in it.
> 
> And you know what? For the job they really need to do (all sorts of 
> things around hardware design and basic business and communication 
> functions), the EL-based workstations work great.
>>
>>>> And you know the Cxxx series of chipsets have been around
>>>> for a while now.  Just not long enough to be out of
>>>> production at which point it will appear on Red Hat
>>>> compatibility list.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Our friends over at Red Hat are continuously supporting
>>> leading edge *server* hardware. 
>>
>> Niko!  The C236 chipset *IS* a server grade chipset!
>> And it has been around for a long time.  No doubt Red Hat
>> will eventually support it in about five years, which is
>> typical of them and useless to me.
>>
> Actually, it was meant to be a consumer and workstation chipset. While 
> it is based on a server chipset, it's been somewhat gutted. But either 
> way, unless the hardware vendor partners with RedHat, the latter is 
> unlikely to support it. Should vendor be yelling at you if your employer 
> got caught in a Congressional budget crunch and couldn't pay for massive 
> magnets? No, because that's not how it works.

Intel does classify it as a "server grade" chipset.  It is
meant low end model meant for small business servers and
top reliability workstations.

> ...
>>
>> My problem is that I have been trying to pound a square peg
>> into a round hole.  RHEL is a really poor choice for a system
>> that has a lot of innovation going on on it.
> 
> It does sound like you're trying to pound a square peg into a round 
> hole, but it's not the peg's fault. One must pick the right peg for the 
> hole that needs to be filled.
> 
> -Miles

RHEL and Clones is best not used as a workstation, unless the
software yo are going to run on it expressly support out-of-date
operating system or software that currently work and your intention
is to freeze it.  And can do such with any OS by turning of
the updates.

In my case, the software I run requires the OS to keep on top
of things.  Having my business' Tasks and Contacts deleted
and the OS not supporting the patch is a *total annoyance*.

And it is my fault for choosing an OS that is out-of-date
by design.  Square peg, round hole.