How about backporting the RPMS from rhe4 to 3? Or is that still not
good enough?
we're talking about that actually...
boy - you must no work for the government 
there's less than zero chance that we could install non-official (rh
sanctioned for our specific platform) rpms on our nodes - security ;-(
shudder. Is the reason Redhat support or the security of the packages or both?
i don't even pretend to know. whenever we start talking about it i just watch
the clock hand spin round and think about all the code i'm not writing. ;-(
-a
···
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Daniel Hobe wrote:
--
email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
phone :: 303.497.6469
Your life dwells amoung the causes of death
Like a lamp standing in a strong breeze. --Nagarjuna
===============================================================================
choir.preaching!
and all true. strange. but true.
i have a ten line c programm i can compile and run on our cluster within the
security policies of the moment. it kernel panics 30 nodes at once. no ruby
1.8.x though.
arrgggh.
-a
···
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Steven Lumos wrote:
But... they run software written by you. But... they won't run Ruby built
by you? Wow. That's just. Wow.
We have not so far had a problem dictating a version of Ruby which the site
installs themselves. But then technically we deliver to government
contractors so I guess that's the difference.
Steve
P.S. Companies who have delivered an OS guaranteed to crash on reaching N
days of uptime: Microsoft, RedHat.
--
email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
phone :: 303.497.6469
anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned.
-- h.h. the 14th dalai lama
===============================================================================