Can we stop this dumb thread. It's sooooo boring and unhelpful. Or at least take it private. Cheers Bill -----Original message----- > From:ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday 9th November 2017 12:07 > To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Rage against the EL Machine > > 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 by the OS being too out of date to accept fixes and 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. > >