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. > > ValeriIm 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, JuanLike 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++