On Wed 06/25/14 03:54PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote: > On 06/25/2014 03:42 PM, Gavin W. Burris wrote: > >On Wed 06/25/14 05:29PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > >>RHEL doesn't cut it for these people: they know that they want later > >>GCC / different commercial compilers / hand written assembly > > > >Any OS flavor will allow for all of these, including RHEL. I'm not sure > >how RHEL prevents any of this. > > How much of the rest of your environment do you need to recompile to make > sure the ABI/API changes don't introduce mismatched impedance bugs?
Build / install alternate software versions as needed. SCL and modules makes this easy. > Perl 5.8.x with the broken patches Perl!? Well there's your problem. > You are aware that the good folks at Red Hat backport some useful things > from later kernels ... Yes, I am. Bonus points for RHEL. > No one is trying to tell you that you should look at other distros. But I > might suggest that others have perfectly valid reasons for consideration of > alternative distros, and the arguments you are using to justify this one > distro aren't quite as strong as you might think. Sure. Agreed. Ten years ago, I was the guy that wanted to run the latest Debian and re-compile kernels. I've since come around to a more enterprise mindset. Cheers, -- Gavin W. Burris Senior Project Leader for Research Computing The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
