CentOS - Oct 2015 - PHP version not enough for developers

El 22/10/2015 a las 03:00 p.m., Valeri Galtsev escribi?:
>
> On Thu, October 22, 2015 12:49 pm, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 10/22/2015 11:50 AM, Juan Bernhard wrote:
>>>
>>> El 22/10/2015 a las 01:40 p.m., Nux! escribi?:
>>>> Kai,
>>>>
>>>> It is a reality, but when you look at the RHEL target audience,
it's
>>>> not exactly hip devs deploying Docker in the cloud.
>>>> Big corps, banks and the like have a very slow development
cycle and
>>>> long term support is absolutely crucial, software needs to run
for
>>>> years on end without glitches, without interruptions, in a very
>>>> predictable manner etc.
>>>>
>>>> For the aforementioned devs I think the best answer are the
software
>>>> collections, that or just use a different distribution. It is
what it
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lucian
>>>
>>> Lucian, they also include the newer versions. The case of banks,
who
>>> need specially PHP version 5.3, are a slim 0.01% of php users, the
rest
>>> of the mortals, like me, who needs a simple webmail like horde
running,
>>> have problems because the rest of the world is not developing any
more
>>> with php 5.3 compatibility in mind
>>>
>>> Saludos, Juan
>>>
>>
>> Correct .. but that is not who RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu (LTS), or SLES type
>> distros are for.  That is what Fedora, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, Linux
>> Mint and any other number of "Bleeding Edge" distros are for.
If you
>> want latest and greatest .. well, then use latest and greatest.  If you
>> want enterprise, then use CentOS.
>>
>
> And incidentally these 0.01% (even if the number is true) of Enterprise
> users pay virtually 100% of RH income (the last is what the brilliant job
> of individuals at RH is paid for from). Let's not forget they as well
as
> us have families to support.
>
> Valeri
Im not saying that they must remove this package, but they also should 
include the newer version. I use freebsd (and its not a toy distro like 
fedora), and you have several ports, php, php54, php55 and php56 to 
choose whatever you need.
Please, dont think that I dont appreciate the RH job on this, some one 
should support a long term version, some applications needs this, but 
very few.
Thats all. I needed to say this, this is the only thing that bother me 
of centos, and its a little thing. The solution is to add another repo, 
but is a petty that they dont include the newer version on the default 
one. Centos its a great distro, dont take this a complain... its just a 
suggestion.

Saludos, Juan
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>>>
>>>> Nux!
>>>> www.nux.ro
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Kai Schaetzl" <maillists at
conactive.com>
>>>>> To: centos at centos.org
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 October, 2015 17:33:33
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CentOS] PHP version not enough for developers
>>>>
>>>>> Nux! wrote on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:27:26 +0100 (BST):
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's irrelevant in this case that PHP 5.3 is EOL.
It will continue
>>>>>> to be supported by Red Hat with security patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>> Nevertheless, PHP 5.6 is not "bleeding edge" as
someone else said.
>>>>> 5.5 and
>>>>> 5.6 are really state of the art and often necessary to
install certain
>>>>> software packages or for some functionality. The packages
provided by
>>>>> RH
>>>>> are much too fast outdated or have other problems. It's
a reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kai
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS at centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Valeri Galtsev
> Sr System Administrator
> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
> University of Chicago
> Phone: 773-702-4247
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

On 10/22/2015 03:40 PM, Juan Bernhard wrote:
> 
> El 22/10/2015 a las 03:00 p.m., Valeri Galtsev escribi?:
>>
>> On Thu, October 22, 2015 12:49 pm, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2015 11:50 AM, Juan Bernhard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> El 22/10/2015 a las 01:40 p.m., Nux! escribi?:
>>>>> Kai,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a reality, but when you look at the RHEL target
audience, it's
>>>>> not exactly hip devs deploying Docker in the cloud.
>>>>> Big corps, banks and the like have a very slow development
cycle and
>>>>> long term support is absolutely crucial, software needs to
run for
>>>>> years on end without glitches, without interruptions, in a
very
>>>>> predictable manner etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the aforementioned devs I think the best answer are the
software
>>>>> collections, that or just use a different distribution. It
is what it
>>>>> is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lucian
>>>>
>>>> Lucian, they also include the newer versions. The case of
banks, who
>>>> need specially PHP version 5.3, are a slim 0.01% of php users,
the rest
>>>> of the mortals, like me, who needs a simple webmail like horde
running,
>>>> have problems because the rest of the world is not developing
any more
>>>> with php 5.3 compatibility in mind
>>>>
>>>> Saludos, Juan
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct .. but that is not who RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu (LTS), or SLES
type
>>> distros are for.  That is what Fedora, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian,
Linux
>>> Mint and any other number of "Bleeding Edge" distros are
for.  If you
>>> want latest and greatest .. well, then use latest and greatest.  If
you
>>> want enterprise, then use CentOS.
>>>
>>
>> And incidentally these 0.01% (even if the number is true) of Enterprise
>> users pay virtually 100% of RH income (the last is what the brilliant
job
>> of individuals at RH is paid for from). Let's not forget they as
well as
>> us have families to support.
>>
>> Valeri
> 
> Im not saying that they must remove this package, but they also should
> include the newer version. I use freebsd (and its not a toy distro like
> fedora), and you have several ports, php, php54, php55 and php56 to
> choose whatever you need.
> Please, dont think that I dont appreciate the RH job on this, some one
> should support a long term version, some applications needs this, but
> very few.
> Thats all. I needed to say this, this is the only thing that bother me
> of centos, and its a little thing. The solution is to add another repo,
> but is a petty that they dont include the newer version on the default
> one. Centos its a great distro, dont take this a complain... its just a
> suggestion.
> 
> Saludos, Juan
Like I said before .. software collections:

http://bit.ly/1GXl0L0




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20151022/356b6d5a/attachment-0001.sig>

On 10/22/2015 1:40 PM, Juan Bernhard wrote:
>
> Im not saying that they must remove this package, but they also should 
> include the newer version. I use freebsd (and its not a toy distro 
> like fedora), and you have several ports, php, php54, php55 and php56 
> to choose whatever you need.
> Please, dont think that I dont appreciate the RH job on this, some one 
> should support a long term version, some applications needs this, but 
> very few.
> Thats all. I needed to say this, this is the only thing that bother me 
> of centos, and its a little thing. The solution is to add another 
> repo, but is a petty that they dont include the newer version on the 
> default one. Centos its a great distro, dont take this a complain... 
> its just a suggestion. 
that suggestion would have to be made with RH, not CentOS, as the 
default CentOS package list *IS* the RHEL package list.



-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On Thu, October 22, 2015 3:45 pm, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/22/2015 03:40 PM, Juan Bernhard wrote:
>>
>> El 22/10/2015 a las 03:00 p.m., Valeri Galtsev escribi?:
>>>
>>> On Thu, October 22, 2015 12:49 pm, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/2015 11:50 AM, Juan Bernhard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> El 22/10/2015 a las 01:40 p.m., Nux! escribi?:
>>>>>> Kai,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a reality, but when you look at the RHEL target
audience, it's
>>>>>> not exactly hip devs deploying Docker in the cloud.
>>>>>> Big corps, banks and the like have a very slow
development cycle and
>>>>>> long term support is absolutely crucial, software needs
to run for
>>>>>> years on end without glitches, without interruptions,
in a very
>>>>>> predictable manner etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the aforementioned devs I think the best answer are
the software
>>>>>> collections, that or just use a different distribution.
It is what
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucian
>>>>>
>>>>> Lucian, they also include the newer versions. The case of
banks, who
>>>>> need specially PHP version 5.3, are a slim 0.01% of php
users, the
>>>>> rest
>>>>> of the mortals, like me, who needs a simple webmail like
horde
>>>>> running,
>>>>> have problems because the rest of the world is not
developing any
>>>>> more
>>>>> with php 5.3 compatibility in mind
>>>>>
>>>>> Saludos, Juan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct .. but that is not who RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu (LTS), or
SLES
>>>> type
>>>> distros are for.  That is what Fedora, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu,
Debian, Linux
>>>> Mint and any other number of "Bleeding Edge" distros
are for.  If you
>>>> want latest and greatest .. well, then use latest and greatest.
If
>>>> you
>>>> want enterprise, then use CentOS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And incidentally these 0.01% (even if the number is true) of
Enterprise
>>> users pay virtually 100% of RH income (the last is what the
brilliant
>>> job
>>> of individuals at RH is paid for from). Let's not forget they
as well
>>> as
>>> us have families to support.
>>>
>>> Valeri
>>
>> Im not saying that they must remove this package, but they also should
>> include the newer version. I use freebsd (and its not a toy distro like
>> fedora), and you have several ports, php, php54, php55 and php56 to
>> choose whatever you need.
>> Please, dont think that I dont appreciate the RH job on this, some one
>> should support a long term version, some applications needs this, but
>> very few.
>> Thats all. I needed to say this, this is the only thing that bother me
>> of centos, and its a little thing. The solution is to add another repo,
>> but is a petty that they dont include the newer version on the default
>> one. Centos its a great distro, dont take this a complain... its just a
>> suggestion.
>>
>> Saludos, Juan
>
> Like I said before .. software collections:
>
> http://bit.ly/1GXl0L0
>
I would add to software collections you mention and different Linux
distributions (differing in update/upgrade lifecycle scheme) also other
*nix-es, FreeBSD was one someone mentioned already (I too "half-moved"
servers to it), but there are many other choices of systems. Still,
disregarding the part some of us dislike personally (plus often reboots
necessary to install some vital updates - which all Linuxes are prone to
beginning somewhere around 2.6 kernel) I would say I really admire the
great job RH folks are doing - and definitely tremendous job CentOS
maintainers do!

Just my 0.02

Valeri

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++