Edmund White wrote: > The hardware on my existing servers is well-supported. Currently, HP's > Proliant health drivers work the best with Redhat 8 (versus the RHAS 2.1 > drivers). I don't wish to make changes to those system because they are in > 24/7 environments. In time, with new server deployments, I'll make an > decision about Red Hat's ES and AS offerings. HP does not have drivers for > those variants yet. That's expected in late November. I don't know what _drivers_ are you talking about, but RHEL usually brings updated drivers for current HW, net and SCSI mainly. And 2.4.23preX already bring latest drivers. And if you insert *any external* driver in your kernel, Red Hat will not support this configuration!!!!! > I'm not concerned about the official hardware support on currently-stable > production systems. I don't know how will take it HP. But others HW/SW companies are going to drop support for RHL EOL OS (no more new drivers, ...), as usual. > Yep. We knew about the EOL, but didn't anticipate the end of the Red Hat > Consumer product line. In this announcement RH said that Consumer product line only will get _1_ year of 'lifetime'. And did you consider to do a migration every year ? Well Fedora is out, and it will get 6-9 month of 'official' lifetime. Plus some months more with this project. If you were happy with RHL then Fedora is for you. > We're not concerned about the local exploits detailed in that changelog. There are remote too. > It's not an issue given the design of our software. The errata kernels > were too much of a moving target with regard to HP Proliant driver > support. In addition, the SGI XFS filesystem is very important to our > application. It was just an example, but I don't know if 2.4.21 or 2.4.22 have more critical bugs. Kernel hackers recomends stay with latest distribution kernels. Otherwise you will have to check linux-kernel *every day* to know if a 'stable' kernel has some critical bug. > I simply examined the patches and RPM spec file for the 2.4.21 RHEL > source. Many of the backported patches are nice, but irrelevant in our to examine them is not enough. RHEL is oriented to servers. > No, but I need a few simple things.... XFS support isn't there, and it's > not easy to patch over the hundreds of intrusive RHEL patches to 2.4.21. XFS is not a simple thing is a _very instrusive patch_ . -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically
