[racket] Racket 6.0 does not work

>
> racket/bin/racket: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by racket/bin/racket)



Note: this error has been seen in other contexts.  A Google search for
this term comes up with several hits:

    https://www.google.com/#q=%2Flib64%2Flibc.so.6%3A+version+%60GLIBC_2.14'+not+found+

and from the search results, it appears that, unfortunately, this
problem is not uncommon.


>From that evidence, I'd argue that this is a Linux-wide problem.  That
is, I would strongly suggest scoping the critique to a larger
applicable context.



>
> Installing Vim+mzscheme is a nuisance, since people must compile Racket from sources, and Vim from sources. In Windows, few people succeed in performing the task. The same is true in the case of OS-X. I am talking about Racket 5.36, for I don't know a single person who installed vim+mzscheme with Racket 6.0.
>

For both Mac OS X and Windows platforms, the DrRacket IDE may be used
instead of VIM.  The compiled packages for Windows and MacOS X should
work out-of-the-box.

Is there a technical or social reason why you are preferring VIM over
DrRacket?  For the audience you are talking about, it seems reasonable
to ask to use a graphical IDE, as beginners often benefit from active
support that an IDE provides.  The DrRacket IDE, in particular, is
tailored for supporting beginner programming, whereas VIM is a bit
more agnostic and arguably less supportive for beginner programmers.

Can you explain why VIM is a requirement here?



As an aside: I do not understand the comment that VIM must be
installed from sources, either.  A Google search for the term "vim
windows" comes with the first hit to the official VIM web site's link
to a pre-packaged, self-installing executable.

    http://www.vim.org/download.php

Similarly results for the Google search for: "vim mac os x"

    https://code.google.com/p/macvim/

so it is unclear what your comments about VIM mean.  In both of these
platforms, it appears that binary packages have been provided.  Can
you elaborate?