I will check out slackware.
Thanks
larry Linder

On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 12:40 -0700, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> Larry,
> 
> It's NOT difficult to support a distro for 22 years.  Look at Slackware.
> 
> It's difficult to keep up with shiny kewl new toys, many of which after 
> 15 years STILL don't work correctly (i.e. don't have serious regressions 
> that break running systems).
> 
> The issue is that developers get kewl shiny new ideas (I won't name any 
> to forestall the usual religious/flame wars)... packagers weave those 
> into everything in the ecosystems without regard to end user needs... 
> Then a bug is found and all hell breaks loose.
> 
> VMWare in and of itself does NOT run end user applications.  When bugs 
> are found in the things the VMWare DOES run, the issue under discussion 
> STILL rears it's ugly head.
> 
> I ran VMWare 1.x to 2.x... Then they took away the ability to run it on 
> a stock distro at 3.x AND took away the web UI (you had to have a 
> windows application to manage VMWare).  I gave 'em the finger and moved 
> on... Now I support users of VMWare and several other versions of 
> virtualization in  number of capacities.  Things break there too, trust me.
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/29/21 11:37 AM, Larry Linder wrote:
> > To support products for 22 years is difficult.
> > Using VMware is a good solution that we have been using for a long time.
> > I even use Win2000 pro for some applications and Dos all under VMWare.
> > The connection to the Linux file system is "samba".
> >
> > Everyone misses the point.  The problem is setting up a system the way
> > we want it and the ability to do that after RH 7 is broken! and has some
> > land mines.  A function that can wipe out a file system is flawed and
> > cannot be trusted.
> >
> > Fortunately VMware works - we just bought a new VMWare version.  Update
> > is painless.
> >
> > Larry Linder
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 09:48 -0700, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:43:12AM +0000, Nick Matchett wrote:
> >>> I hope that someone could help me identify an individual or business that would be able to help me with the following problem.
> >>> My business has some software that we acquired the responsibility to maintain and support, and currently sits on Scientific Linux version 6.3.  Unfortunately, we are at a stage where our customers are asking to bring the software onto a more current version of a Linux platform.
> >>> We would like to migrate to Red Hat or CentOS version 7.9  (or perhaps version 8)
> >>
> >> Oh, boy! We are on the receiving end of such problem with Altera. Their latest fpga compiler
> >> does not support cyclone-1 FPGA, the last version that does still by a miracle
> >> runs on ubuntu and centos7, and of course Altera will never update it. As if nobody needs
> >> to compile cyclone-1 fpga code.
> >>
> >> If, like in this case, your application still does something useful and your customers still
> >> want to run it, perhaps simplest is not to monkey around with it, just package it
> >> as a VM container that runs on current-ish linuxes.
> >>
> >>> I hope that someone could help me identify an individual or business
> >> I wish you best luck with hiring the right staff, contractor or consultant to resolve your trouble.
> >>
> >> K.O.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We have been working on a migration from Scientific Linux 6.3 to Redhat 7.9.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately, we have limited Linux OS skills in our business, and we have approached this with a fresh RH 7.9 install and then applying the RPM of our software.  There is a big mismatch between Scientific Linux 6.3 to Redhat 7.9 in terms of libraries, file structure and type of libraries between the software and we have not been able to reconcile those.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would appreciate any suggestion or advice on the best upgrade path to achieve this update  and would be happy to take recommendations on individuals or companies who might be interested in a professional service engagement to help solve the problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance