Warren Young wrote: > On May 10, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> > wrote: >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 3:57 pm, Liam O'Toole wrote: >>> On 2016-05-10, Valeri Galtsev >>> <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>>> <snip> >> Yes, LTS, thanks Liam. Only LTS has life cycle of mere 2 years, whereas >> RHEL (hence CentOS) is what, 10 years? <snip> > And in fact, more than two. This isn’t just about RHEL vs Debian and > derivatives of same. Several major non-Linux OSes also manage to do > automatic upgrades between major releases: Windows, OS X, FreeBSD... I was under the impression that all the releases of OS X were more like what we call subreleases (6.6->6.7). But I don't know, and don't really care - I don't do WinDoze, I don't do (or like) Macs. <snip> > Your point about the 10 year support cycle for RHEL is also invalid. The > time spacing between major releases is only about every 3 years, and that > is the period that matters here. No, it's not invalid, nor is it what matters. For example, here at work, we have clusters, and a small supercomputer, all running 6.x (in the case of the supercomputer, it's an SGI-modified RHEL 6.x), and they'll go to 7 probably when they're surplused replaced. Or take me, personally, at home - I dislike systemd, and have zero intention of going up until I have to, and that won't come for a good number of years yet, when support for 6.x stops. And, btw, no, you cannot tell me I'm "wrong" to dislike it, that I should "Embrace Change!!!", because a) I don't need anyone's opinion to justify how I feel about how I deal with something, and b) just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*. For one example, I do *not* embrace change in the form of, say, Web-enabled thermostats (and they do security updates exactly *when*?, or Web-connected cars (are you out of your friggin' alleged mind?). So, why should I go to something NEW! SHINY! when what I have works well, and is comfortable? <MVNCH> And automatic upgrades are *NOT* always a Good Idea. For example, just last year, EPEL just upgraded the torque packages that we use to run our clusters... from 2.5 to 4.2(?!?!?!), which broke the test cluster instantly, and took a lot of research and work to make work on the test system by the admin I work with, and on our two big clusters, we're not upgrading - our users would be down for a while... and these are several folks running jobs on the (24, 25) node clusters whose jobs can run a week or two straight. mark, down in the trenches, not in a hosting environment