<html><head></head><body><div>On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 14:46 -0400, James Sumners wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div><pre><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>I am glad I do not work where you work. Redundancy doesn't imply corruption mitigation. And refusing to allow such to be implemented because the tool isn't "old" is asinine.<br><br clear="all"><div></div></div></pre><pre>
</pre></blockquote><div>It's not that things are refused because they are new. It's rather they are refused because they are not yet "well understood" and "mature". Mil-Spec work is _always_ like that. </div><div><br></div><div>Often, there are areas where software is never upgraded or changed because the systems are never networked. Thus any problem can never be fixed and the process that machine exists for _MUST_ be up at all times. So, no "new hotness allowed". Imagine being stuck in a world where "new" was RHEL 5.</div><div class="-x-evo-signature-wrapper"><span><pre>--
James P. Kinney III
Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you
gain at one end you lose at the other. It's like feeding a dog on his
own tail. It won't fatten the dog.
- Speech 11/23/1900 Mark Twain
http://heretothereideas.blogspot.com/
</pre></span></div></body></html>