> An IT illustration: there are still places running RHEL6 in production and not seeing an effort to migrate from it worth the while. I recently interviewed at

> An IT illustration: there are still places running RHEL6 in production and not seeing an effort to migrate from it worth the while. I recently interviewed at a startup (though a reasonably far-along/mature, if not spectacularly successful by VC standards) that was both running RHEL6 and depending a remarkable amount on "enterprise" gear, software, and support, which seemed incongruous for any small company, let alone a startup. They did see it as worthwhile to "migrate" to CentOS6, but I'm pretty sure the interviewer who was the incumbent rejected me quickly and strenuously after I admitted a preference for Ubuntu (due to its package ecosystem better catering to a wider array of developers, making my DevOps culture evangelism and implementation that much easier) and a focus on frugality first when it comes to hardware (that being a huge benefit of it being a commodity). > They have more important things to do. Poe's Law aside, I do actually find this to be a valid argument, if it's presented eyes-open, rather than just through inertia. That is, there's a difference between having considered the migration and deciding it's not worth it (or that the "more important things" are more worth it and take priority) and not having considered the migration at all because those "more important things" completely consumed everyone's attention. I don't mean to present these as a false dichotomy, just two extremes that illustrate my point.