Once upon a time, Daniel Roesen <dr@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:31:46AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > redhat would end up "supporting" > > 5-6 releases (going back ~3 years @ ~ 6 month innovation cycle), which > > would be unmanageable. Is that really what you want? > > Yes, it is what I want. But obviously nothing Red Hat does provide > (anymore). AFAIK nobody provides that. When I looked a while back, most of the free OS distributions only commit to 1 year of updates for a particular release. The commercial OS vendors have longer support, but don't have full new releases as often. > > Besides, IMO, RHEL is pretty good when it comes to innovation too. Are > > there features missing from RHEL that you need? > > It's not necessarily features. When I (re-)install a computer today, > I don't want a general software release level which is a year old > (or even more, RHEL4 isn't on the horizont yet as far as I can see). It is on the horizon; just look at the changelogs of some RPMs in Fedora. I've seen numerous "RHEL4" related comments. If the features you need are there, what difference does the release date make? There is software in both RHEL and Fedora that hasn't been changed in a while. Also, RHEL has quarterly updates with new versions of some things (and feature backports in other things like the kernel). I just updated my server install tree with RHEL 3 Update 3. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
