| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It's worth repeating: the customer caused this, he must now feel the |
| 4 |
> pain and not you. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
So, if he made an informed choice and that is what he chose, then that |
| 8 |
is how it has to be. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
However, if I were in the position of supporting this installation I'd |
| 11 |
probably give some thought as to what the right tools for the job are. |
| 12 |
Gentoo simply isn't designed to be updated twice a decade. If you |
| 13 |
REALLY want that kind of deployment you should probably be running |
| 14 |
something like RHEL, which will commercially support your old install |
| 15 |
for years and help you with any issues with migration (but there |
| 16 |
aren't likely to be many, since they will have tested moving from one |
| 17 |
5-year-old release to the next 5-year-supported one. Debian stable or |
| 18 |
CentOS are of course free alternatives, or Ubuntu LTS. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I love Gentoo, and I think it is the right tool for a lot of jobs, but |
| 21 |
it isn't always the right tool for EVERY job. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If it really is just one box and you don't mind dealing with the |
| 24 |
downtime/hassle/etc twice a decade then by all means use Gentoo. |
| 25 |
However, if I were managing 100 of these this is not how I'd want to |
| 26 |
be doing it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives