> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikesell_at_gmail.com]
> > This has already been mentioned in this thread. I can't speak for
> > anyone else, but I personally support engineers and engineering tools.
> > The engineering tools are only supported on the latest 2 versions of
> > RHEL/centos. Of which, the latest one is perpetually unstable.
> I guess that's a matter of opinion, but seriously, Red Hat Enterprise,
> unstable??? I don't think so. Maybe you've confused it with fedora. I do
> recall a few problems with 4.x early on though - and I replaced them all
> 5.x as quickly as possible.
Have we had enough discussion of RHEL4 yet? The whole point of the
discussion was: There is no svn 1.5 or 1.6 available for RHEL4, from any of
the "standard" repositories. I choose to build from source, and posted how
I do it, to show that it's easy.
Do we really need to continually rehash the discussion of why anyone would
ever use RHEL4???
This is definitely off topic, but it's not RHEL4 or RHEL5 that's unstable.
It's the engineering tools, if you run them on whichever is the latest
version of RHEL. Because the developers who produce the tools don't have
access to the latest OS until the same time when you do. That means when
it's released, they start debugging things at the rate customers complain
about them. And since most of the customers are like me - conservative and
resistant to changing the engineering development environment - it means the
debug time for the application on the new OS is a long time.
For these engineering tools, I choose to run the fully patched oldest
supported OS, and only upgrade when support is ending for it. Hence, I am
currently upgrading from RHEL4 to RHEL5, because RHEL6 was just released.
Can we let this topic die now?
Received on 2010-11-16 14:03:47 CET