On Wed, December 8, 2004 9:46 am, Sean Middleditch said: > > The problem is that nothing is solved. I have RHEL 2.1, but it's near > bloody impossible to find up-to-date RPMs of various software I need for > it. I *could* upgrade to RHEL 3.0, but then that would require massive > server downtime across several *very* important servers, and who knows > if things will actually work afterwards? These were the same issues facing people moving from Windows NT to Windows 2000. There's no magic bullet. > Why the hell should I have to upgrade my operating system to get a new > version of SSH or Exim installed? The same is true with Windows 2000, the updates from Microsoft are slowing down. You take the software that is released by them at the pace they release it or you roll your own. I don't see the difference between that and RHEL 2.1. > > Why should I have to compile it and patch it myself, then becoming > responsible to manually track all security updates and repatch/rebuild > it asap after each is released, when it's *already* being repatched and > recompiling by thousands of other people around the world, including > people at Red Hat? > So, we need a RHEL 2.1 extras repository? Sounds like an opportunity. Even without a RHEL repository, the burden of recompiling custom rpm's really isn't all that great anyway. > With the "solution" you seem to think to exists, those are my only two > options. Neither is very appealing at all. Exactly what extra solution do you have on a Windows 2000 box? Does your complaint boil down to you prefer binaries over source code? Sean
