On Wed, May 11, 2016 11:10 am, Warren Young wrote:
On May 11, 2016, at 9:38 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Warren Young wrote:
This isnât just about RHEL vs Debian and derivatives of same. Several major non-Linux OSes also manage to do automatic upgrades between major releases: Windows, OS X, FreeBSD...
I was under the impression that all the releases of OS X were more like what we call subreleases (6.6->6.7).
You canât transfer meaning between different version number systems. There is no global standard for the meaning of version numbers. The only thing that matters is that there is internal consistency.
(Which is why Windows version numbering is a joke.)
And there was a joke about them. When RedHat started pacing fast with their CD version releases: 7.3 --> 8 --> 9 in very short time, someone said: they try to catch up with others in major version number. And someone else pointed: they cant: MS already has Windows 2000 ;-)
OS X treats changes to the âxâ component of their OS X 10.x.y version numbering system about the same way as EL does in its x.y system. The only difference is that major OS X versions have been coming out yearly in recent years, so that there is less cumulative difference between major versions than in CentOS major versions. But thereâs probably at least as much change every 3 major OS X versions, as youâd expect since CentOS major versions are also about 3 years apart.
And, in fact, OS X will allow itself to be upgraded across major OS versions. It doesnât demand that you upgrade to each intermediate version separately.
MacOS 10 server (sorry about using Arabic number, I hate using Roman numbers written with Latin letters, makes any search useless) breaks things between 10.x versions consistently. They change the way authentication is done, add, then drop Apache modules, and so on. No, I do not run any of my servers under MacOS (FreeBSD is current choice, hopefully for long time to come). But some of Professors I work for do it, and I have to help them by doing dirty part that comes with it. So: nobody is perfect (meaning MacOS 10 here ;-)
Valeri
Calling OS X major releases âsubversionsâ is just as fallacious as the opposite problem we see here in the CentOS world, where some people believe that CentOS 7.1 is incompatible with CentOS 7.2. A change to y in these two x.y system means something very different, yet both are correct because both systems are internally consistent.
Your point about the 10 year support cycle for RHEL is also invalid. The time spacing between major releases is only about every 3 years, and that is the period that matters here.
No, it's not invalid, nor is it what matters. For example, here at work, we have clusters, and a small supercomputer, all running 6.x (in the case of the supercomputer, it's an SGI-modified RHEL 6.x), and they'll go to 7 probably when they're surplused replaced.
Yes, andâ¦? Just because you have one use case where a major version upgrade does not make sense does not mean that major version upgrades donât make sense everywhere.
I already covered that case in my previous post, and the counterargument remains the same: not all OS upgrades can be coupled with hardware upgrades. VMs are only one reason, though a big one.
As for all the rest of your post, yes, I get it: nothing should ever change, nothing should ever break. You just go and live live that dream. Meanwhile, in my world, change happens. Your unwillingness to cope with it does not prevent me from doing so. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++