On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
:
>
> when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL
> that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily
> install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something
> and i'll have my contact look into it: if people *initially* install
> 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new
> releases come out?
>
Terminology: generally an upgrade refers to moving from one major
release to another, whereas an update is moving forward to the newest
sub-release. I.e., CentOS 5.5 -> CentOS 6.0 will be an upgrade (and
not recommended as an upgrade per se), whereas CentOS 5.3 -> CentOS
5.5 is an update.
> obviously, i have to ask my contact to verify what the client has
> been doing all this time but, in general, what's the normal behaviour
> for people running centos/rhel? and is there a way to examine an
> install to see how updated it's been since that original installation?
>
Check /etc/redhat-release; also uname -a if you know which kernel to look for.
> i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that
> they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more
> appropriate choice. thanks for any tips.
>
They're both CentOS 5. The differences are mainly (but not
exclusively) in security enhancements, upgrades to applications (like
Firefox or OO) and the like. I would check to be sure if you think it
will make that much difference (and it might - 5.3 is what, a year old
now?).
HTH
Mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
