At 18:36 10/26/2003, Justin Banks wrote:
Peter B. West wrote
> So what's your opinion of RH9, both for commercial and personal use. I
> upgraded my 7.3 personal systems to 9 [...] and I have
> never had so many things break on an upgrade before.
I'll chime in here, just because I feel strongly about this. RH9 broke so
many things it was a disgrace.
For the sake of counterpoint and playing devil's advocate, I have 3 workstations, 2 notebooks, and about 10 servers on RH9. All were clean installs, not upgrades. A variety of software is run, all installed using RPM and obtained either from Red Hat, FreshRPMS, Fedora Project, or Freshmeat/Sourceforge. Not one single machine has given me a single minute's trouble since they were installed and put online (pretty much right after 9 came out).
Fresh installs are nice if you don't already have systems in production. If you do, than fresh installs aren't so nice--especially with the amount of time it can sometimes take to get everything tuned correctly.
Part of what makes a good distribution isn't just how well it works when installed /from scratch/, as it were, but also how it upgrades from one version to another. I'm running several RH 7.2 servers and decided to upgrade one of my test systems (also RH 7.2) to RH 9. Many things broke. Some things that worked perfectly before quit working--Apache-FP, many Perl apps, the UTF-8 encoding mucked up my SSH clients (distored pstrees, watch, etc), and some problems I'm still finding. And all this happened without warning.
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
