[ale] Question on Current Red Hat Update Policies

[Jeff Hubbs]

I've been running FC2 on my primary desktop system in replacement of a
Mandrake 10.0 installation that was getting a little long in the tooth
and the FC2 isn't staying.  I don't care for the Red-Hatization of KDE
and I've had continued problems with my parallel-port scanner.  I have
persistent problems accessing Samba shares that result in app lockups. 
I'm not sure if I'll go back to Mandrake or not.  I work with Gentoo
more than anything else but it's a big feature-by-feature hassle to get
Gentoo machines up to a good desktop working state.  It's almost worth
it to get "out of the box" no-nonsense KDE behavior.

Jeff

On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 21:12, Dow Hurst wrote:
> I agree with Bob on recommending SuSE.  I've never had a box get screwed 
> up by updates from SuSE but have with RHEL.  Also, there is white box 
> linux that is RHEL without the Redhat proprietary stuff.  Then you can 
> install apt and use dag's repository and kde-redhat to update.  If your 
> project requires "quality support" at a high level, then I'd compensate 
> for the lessened code review on FC3 by using test server and client 
> boxes to apply updates before rolling out to production.  I've been 
> using my own workstation as a test box for updates from RedHat just in 
> case of a problem(it's a Dell RHEL3 box).  I have more confidence in 
> SuSE than in Redhat for quality patching.  It may be that Redhat tries 
> to support more bleeding edge hardware and SuSE waits around for the 
> next major release for that, I don't know.  I haven't forgotten the 
> glibc update that hosed my box last year.  I was lucky to get it working 
> without losing the filesystem and never want to repeat that scenario.
> Dow
> 
> 
> Bob Toxen wrote:
> 
> >It appears that Fedora does not do the QC and Regression Testing that
> >"commercial" Distros do and so some consider it unsuitable for Production
> >environments.
> >
> >I recommend Slackware, Mandrake, or SuSE to my clients, depending on
> >requirements.
> >
> >Bob Toxen
> >bob at verysecurelinux.com               [Please use for email to me]
> >http://www.verysecurelinux.com        [Network&Linux/Unix security consulting]
> >http://www.realworldlinuxsecurity.com [My book:"Real World Linux Security 2/e"]
> >Quality Linux & UNIX security and SysAdmin & software consulting since 1990.
> >
> >"Microsoft: Unsafe at any clock speed!"
> >   -- Bob Toxen 10/03/2002
> >
> >On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 01:08:15PM -0500, Jerald Sheets wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >>RHEL is a commercial project, with licenses and the whole software company
> >>thing.
> >>
> >>FC is a "bleeding edge" project, with the latest and greatest (and
> >>unstablest....is that a word?)  stuff in it.  You *can*, however, do regular
> >>updates through apt-rpm and yum.
> >>
> >>I'm using FC2 & 3 in production, becase if it came down to it, I could
> >>update what I have to whatever version I want...no troubles.
> >>
> >>Jerald M. Sheets jr.
> >>Sr. UNIX Systems Administrator
> >>(404) 293-8762
> >>**********
> >>    
> >>
> >>>su -
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Password:
> >># cat /dev/flood > /dev/earth
> >># rdev noah+beasts
> >># dd if=noah+beasts of=/dev/earth
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Greg
> >>Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 11:16 AM
> >>To: ALE
> >>Subject: [ale] Question on Current Red Hat Update Policies
> >>
> >>I abandoned RH for my home use when they let go of the home user market and
> >>now I am faced with having to use them for a project.  I have downloaded
> >>RHEL 3 and Fedora Core 3 and was wondering if one needs to buy a
> >>subscription to update RHEL or not.  I was also wondering what (if any)
> >>differences there are between RHEL and FC besides the official RH company
> >>support for RHEL.
> >>
> >>TIA,
> >>
> >>Greg
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Ale mailing list
> >>Ale at ale.org
> >>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >>Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.0 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
> >> 
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >>Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.0 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
> >> 
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Ale mailing list
> >>Ale at ale.org
> >>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>    
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ale mailing list
> >Ale at ale.org
> >http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> >  
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale