[svlug] (forw) Linux at Work

Scott DuBois rhcom.linux at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 09:32:07 PST 2015


On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:06:51AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> 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
> managers.
> 
> > 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?

Of course, my thoughts exactly.

> 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.

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/162006/where-how-to-install-centos-7-for-32-bit-system

> 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
> 6).  

Ok. then I can just grab the most _recent_ version available and go with that.
Good to know.

http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/6/isos/i386/

Each distro makes their own bed of what they are willing to provide. If it's in
the RH/CentOS best interest to only provide 64bit, then I'm sure they have their
reasons. It just doesn't work for me to be able to run CentOS 7.

It is what it is, I press on. 

-- 
EFF ID: 1731778

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has limits."
-- Einstein
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.svlug.org/archives/svlug/attachments/20150129/42576bc9/attachment.bin


More information about the svlug mailing list