Pete Biggs schrieb:
If this sort of stance seems risible to you, you probably shouldn’t
be using CentOS. This is what distinguishes a “stable” type of OS
from a “bleeding edge” one.
When a version of a software has been released 20 years ago,
that doesn´t mean it´s more stable than a version of that
software which is being released today.
Not "software", Warren said "OS" - it's the whole ecosystem that is
more stable if the versions of the software that's within it are kept
consistent.
Of course, you can consider "never change the version of the
software" as something making for a stable OS. But what about
the bug fixes?
Critical bug fixes are back ported, if appropriate, into the version of
the software packaged with the OS - that is the point of the commitment
by RH to support the OS.
That´s a good thing. I thought they were more about security updates
than bug fixes.
The software has been written with perl 5.20.1, which is already
rather old.
As far as I can see it hadn't been released when RHEL7 was released, so
there's no chance of it being the default version.
As others have said, if you need bang up-to-date versions of software,
then RHEL/CentOS is not for you.
So far, the perl version is the only problem I´ve found. I´d prefer
getting things to work with Centos rather than using multiple different
distributions on the servers, including the VMs. It would make things
easier.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
