John R Pierce wrote:
> On 7/14/2014 12:48 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>> On the contrary it means a discerning user like me, never adverse to
>> complaining, is satisfied with the quality product C 5 undoubtedly is.
>> And satisfied sufficiently to use it instead of C6 and C7.
>
> perhaps you should change your username from Always Learning, as it
> appears you've decided to stop as of about 5 years ago.
>
a) This is rude.
b) We have several 5.x servers here. For one, we kept one or two home
directory servers at 5.x due to writing to an NFS mounted home directory
from a 6.x server could be a literal order of magnitude slower. It took
us over a year to find that if we added nobarrier to the filesystems
that it was < 10% slower.
c) We have some production boxes that are 5.10. *YOU* go and tell managers
that we're going to take down their production boxes and upgrade them,
or were *you* personally going to assure that their budgets would be
upped to provide replacement servers that could be built and tested
prior to replacement (and note that the last set just got upgraded just
before 6.0 came out in '12?)... and this is part of an agency of the
US government, and we are *NOT* DOD. Care to talk to your
Congresscritters
to assure this, if you're a US resident?
mark, not sure when I'll go to 7 at home, what with systemd....