On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 11:16 +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 22:09, Paul wrote:
> >> I also found Debian Stable a bit too long in the tooth as far as
> >> software packages ... it felt like I was migrating from RHL 7.3 to 6.2.
> >
> > Yes, if you are arguing about future availability of Centos, ask
> > the Debian proponent to describe the schedule for planned
> > future Debian releases. I've never been able to understand
> > that myself.
They release the new version "When it is ready" :)
>
> And for EOL on security fixes for older versions. I have to admit that
> I have no idea how long they support these, so their support actually
> could be quite okay.
>
There is nothing wrong with debian ... in that they provide a long term
and stable distro. Here is their official policy on Woody (the last
stable release) and Potato, the one before that:
-------------------
Potato was available from August 14th, 2000 until June 30th, 2003. That
was < 3 years.
The security team has announced that it will continue to provide
security updates for Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (woody) until May 2006 or
until security support for etch (the release following sarge) starts.
Woody was released on July 19, 2002, that is about 4 years. So the last
2 stable releases were a total of 7 years for Security support.
The RHEL support cycle is 7 years for security updates though, so it is
still the available for longer periods. RHEL 2.1 (for example) was
released on May 17, 2002 (almost exactly the same time as Woody) ... and
it will be supported with security updates until May 31, 2009 (more than
3 years after debain stopped support for Woody). If you were running a
critical application that was on a Woody box, you would have to upgrade
it twice as often as you would if it were on RHEL 2.1.
Each distro has it's pluses and minuses.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060123/36e39e43/attachment.bin
