3 ms·
Sure, but if you're looking at systems running the latest RHEL, there's a lot of stuff you don't get. RHEL5, when it shipped at least, didn't have memcached. R
by danudey 13y ago
Sure, but if you're looking at systems running the latest RHEL, there's a lot of stuff you don't get. RHEL5, when it shipped at least, didn't have memcached.
RHEL has always appealed to IT departments and server staff who value stability over functionality, much like corporate IT at the hospital where I worked finally approved Windows XP SP1 for test deploys, well after SP3 had been released. They don't want to risk the headache, so they stick with what works rather than providing functionality (or compatibility) that others could need.
There's definitely value in that, don't get me wrong, but my point is that the types of environments where RHEL5 are the norm wouldn't be rolling out Docker instances even if they could, and I don't feel as if they should be counted against the impact of progress.
- rdtsc 13y agoBut a lot of servers and platforms out there don't run on this years' Linux kernel. That is a far cry from "virtually anywhere" which was my original issue with this blogpost. I am not arguing that I need Docker to run on RHEL personally or I need it to run in Windows. The point was about making unsubstantiated claims about a product and in the meantime while seemingly trying to help "market" the product now putting the creators on the defense having to backpedal. "Well no, contrary to what some of your may have read from our zealous followers, we don't don't run virtually anywhere. Here is a list of Linux distros we run out of the box on. Here is a list where you'll need to installed a custom kernel."