[svlug] (forw) Linux at Work

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Jan 29 00:06:51 PST 2015

Quoting Scott DuBois (rhcom.linux at gmail.com):

> Being 'exposed' to something or taking a class in it doesn't mean after class I
> would want to touch it again. Someone else makes the curriculum based on
> whatever criteria they use, supposedly what the industry wants. However, the
> industry is constantly complaining that students are coming out of the schools
> not knowing the things that employers _want_ them to know; so where is the
> disconnect?

Yeah, dunno.  All I can say is that there's been a major disconnect
between academic computing (in most places) and real computing as long
as I can remember.  And, most firms in my experience, your academic
credentials being in computer fields really isn't worth much to hiring

> The only issue I've found with CentOS is a lack of 32bit offering.

Ummmmmm..., I'm sorry, I know it doesn't reflect well on me, but I'm
amused at the error I _think_ you just made.

I'm guessing you think CentOS 7 is a next-version upgrade from CentOS 6,
which is a next-verstion upgrade from CentOS 6.  Amirite?

I was extremely puzzled at your assertion of their being no i386
versions of CentOS -- because the branches people _actually use_ in 2015,
which is to say CentOS 6 and CentOS 5, have always existed for i386 and
x86_64 architectures.  Nobody sane is doing anything but poke at CentOS 7
with a long stick, from a distance.

In short, no.  These are not three versions of the same thing (with 7.0
being the flavour du jour).  These are three different development
branches.  Both Red Hat itself, and the many enterprise customers who
rely on either RHEL or its unbranded recompile CentOS, relies on
long-lived branches that have proven stability.  Which means that
there's a huge amount of RHEL5 out there (the unbranded equivalent being
CentOS 5) and probably a more huge and growing amount of RHEL6 (CentOS

That having been said, if your i386 hardware is as ancient and
RAM-limited as I strongly suspect it is, d00d, you aren't going to get
very far with that running enterprise Linux distros.  Time to hang it
up.  Companies have been throwing away x86_64 machines as obsolete for,
oh, maybe a decade.  Might want to try some dumpster-diving, or trips to
Weird Stuff.

> Fedora? Tried it. If someone likes it, that's cool. I wouldn't give up Debian
> based distros for it. I simply found the rpm packaging system lacking but, it's
> been a few years and I read it was going to be completely revamped so maybe it's
> better. Forced to use it? Whatever.

{shrug}  The RPM metadata is formatted differently, and there are some
characteristic differences between the way deb-based and rpm-based
distros are _typically_ constructed (e.g., it's culturally common in
RPM-based distros for a libs binary package to include both runtime and
dev libs, whereas those are traditionally separate binary debs), but
other than that, the toolchains are greatly similar.  Even the
abstraction levels of the package tools stacks are about the same.
I find that they're about equally capable.

More information about the svlug mailing list