Red Hat Linux 9.0 announced
Posted Mar 25, 2003 15:45 UTC (Tue) by
bkw1a (subscriber, #4101)
In reply to:
Red Hat Linux 9.0 announced by patsoffice.com
Parent article:
Red Hat Linux 9 announced
If binary compatability is broken it's a major version number bump.
Personally, that's the main reason I'm concerned about this. I maintain
a lot of Red Hat computers (over 100), using a standard configuration.
Ever since version 4.2, I've been developing a new configuration whenever
a new *.2 version comes out, then installing it on new machines and
upgrading old ones. I've got a nightly update scheme that lets me
easily push out updates, but when a major upgrade comes along, it means
actually laying hands on each of the machines and spending at least
an hour with it. (The hardware varies widely, from desktop machines
with various sound/video/whatever cards to several small clusters of
headless machines.)
Even just developing and testing a new build is something I spend
months on. I aim for security and stability, and so far things have
gone pretty well.
The problem is, Red Hat is releasing major versions more and more
rapidly, and each version is significantly bigger (requiring more
head-scratching while developing the build, and more time to install).
I'm currently just finishing up an upgrade from a build based on
6.2 to one based on 7.2. I was hoping to be stable there until
8.2 came out. Now it looks like there will never be an 8.2.
Recently, I've been seriously considering a switch to Debian, because
of the apparent ease of upgrades. I'd love to be able to test
a new major version, then deploy it remotely without touching the
machines. My main concern is with security updates. Red Hat does
a terrific job with security patches, in general. To keep as
up-to-date as I need to be, I'd need to Debian-unstable, but I'm
worried about the speed with which security updates are released
for the unstable tree. Does anyone have any advice about this?
(
Log in to post comments)