[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RHL 9 - concerns

I've been using Red Hat Linux since the early 3.x-days, and have tested
each single release since 4.0, and I must say that the hairs on my neck
have become a bit stiffer than usual after the release announcement of Red
Hat Linux 9.

Red Hat Linux .0-releases have always been.. well... LOUSY. Sorry guys,
you've done an excellent job all these years, but it's a _well known_ fact
that you never ever run .0-releases. Almost everyone I know (including all
the customers the company I'm working for is operating) will have a
..0-release running on a test system, but never ever run it on a
workstation or server. NEVER servers.

Why? They are unstable, software is seldom available (binary compability
shite), during the next weeks and months, 200-600 megs with errata land,
etc etc, etc... it's just crazy to run a new Red Hat Linux release until a
..1 is out, and you put servers on hold until a .2 og .3-release is out.

I don't think it's me - after a post here, I got a responce from 50
sysadmins, everyone agreed - .0 is beta, .1 is usable for workstations, .2
is for servers.

RHL 4.2 - perfect for servers
RHL 6.2 - perfect for workstations at that time and servers
RHL 7.3 - PERFECT :-)

I've still got RHL 6.2-servers.. currently, I'm administrating 10 RHL
6.2-servers, 2 4.2-servers and about 200 7.3-servers, and we were planning
on moving some over til RHL 8.1 for testing... but what happened? We
haveto wait at least one year for the dust to settle and 9.1 comes.. if
it's not going to be release 10 or 20...

And for workstation use.. sorry, but Phoebe is too way sluggish.. I mean,
10 seconds to launch a gnome terminal with just 3 mozillas and 4 terminals
running on a 1,6GHz machine? come on...

Phoebe-list mailing list

[Home]     [Kernel List]     [Red Hat Install]     [Red Hat Watch List]     [DVD Store]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

Powered by Linux