Pete Biggs schrieb: > >> >>> If this sort of stance seems risible to you, you probably shouldn’t >>> be using CentOS. This is what distinguishes a “stable” type of OS >>> from a “bleeding edge” one. >> >> When a version of a software has been released 20 years ago, >> that doesn´t mean it´s more stable than a version of that >> software which is being released today. > > Not "software", Warren said "OS" - it's the whole ecosystem that is > more stable if the versions of the software that's within it are kept > consistent. > >> >> Of course, you can consider "never change the version of the >> software" as something making for a stable OS. But what about >> the bug fixes? > > Critical bug fixes are back ported, if appropriate, into the version of > the software packaged with the OS - that is the point of the commitment > by RH to support the OS. That´s a good thing. I thought they were more about security updates than bug fixes. >> The software has been written with perl 5.20.1, which is already >> rather old. > > As far as I can see it hadn't been released when RHEL7 was released, so > there's no chance of it being the default version. > > As others have said, if you need bang up-to-date versions of software, > then RHEL/CentOS is not for you. So far, the perl version is the only problem I´ve found. I´d prefer getting things to work with Centos rather than using multiple different distributions on the servers, including the VMs. It would make things easier.