I have a few servers that I really have to build already. Got to buckle down and get it done; no more waiting for 5.2 as a 'reason' to put it off for another day.
I will be building a local repository for 5.2 as soon as the ISOs are posted (well as soon as my 768Kb DSL link will allow), so what am I looking at for the 'cost' of the upgrade?
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I have a few servers that I really have to build already. Got to buckle down and get it done; no more waiting for 5.2 as a 'reason' to put it off for another day.
I will be building a local repository for 5.2 as soon as the ISOs are posted (well as soon as my 768Kb DSL link will allow), so what am I looking at for the 'cost' of the upgrade?
5.2 should be here by Monday(6/23) or Tuesday(6/24)
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I have a few servers that I really have to build already. Got to buckle down and get it done; no more waiting for 5.2 as a 'reason' to put it off for another day.
I will be building a local repository for 5.2 as soon as the ISOs are posted (well as soon as my 768Kb DSL link will allow), so what am I looking at for the 'cost' of the upgrade?
5.2 should be here by Monday(6/23) or Tuesday(6/24)
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Will likewise-open and the likewise-open-gui be available in a repository? If not, how would one go about getting it added?
On 6/19/08, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote: <snip>
5.2 should be here by Monday(6/23) or Tuesday(6/24)
I'm looking forward to upgrading to 5.2! If for nothing else, for the newer version of Mozilla Firefox. The current version (1.5.0.12) crashes, very frequently, at web sites I use. The brain dead version of Konqueror (3.5.4-15) is much more stable than this version of Firefox. Everyone will, hopefully, BACKUP, before they do this upgrade!
Why do distributions put in very old versions of Firefox - 1.5 when 2.0 has been out for a year or more and 3.0 was just released.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Lanny Marcus lmmailinglists@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/08, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
<snip> > 5.2 should be here by Monday(6/23) or Tuesday(6/24)
I'm looking forward to upgrading to 5.2! If for nothing else, for the newer version of Mozilla Firefox. The current version (1.5.0.12) crashes, very frequently, at web sites I use. The brain dead version of Konqueror (3.5.4-15) is much more stable than this version of Firefox. Everyone will, hopefully, BACKUP, before they do this upgrade! _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 6/19/08, Rob Townley rob.townley@gmail.com wrote:
Why do distributions put in very old versions of Firefox - 1.5 when 2.0 has been out for a year or more and 3.0 was just released.
<snip>
Rob: This distribution, is for the Enterprise (where the majority of installations are on Servers) and the priorities are Stability and Security and a Long Life, and not "the latest and greatest", that you would find in Fedora Core or Ubuntu, 2 examples among many distributions. The drawback here is that we are slow to get new stuff, but that is intentional. Lucky here, that Upstream is including some much newer stuff, in v.5.2! :-) Lanny
Security > Stability when it comes to web browsers and i wonder if 1.5 is more secure than 2.14. i wonder when 1.x will not have security patches anymore. rh must document that somewhere and i will have to find it.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Lanny Marcus lmmailinglists@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/08, Rob Townley rob.townley@gmail.com wrote:
Why do distributions put in very old versions of Firefox - 1.5 when 2.0 has been out for a year or more and 3.0 was just released.
<snip>
Rob: This distribution, is for the Enterprise (where the majority of installations are on Servers) and the priorities are Stability and Security and a Long Life, and not "the latest and greatest", that you would find in Fedora Core or Ubuntu, 2 examples among many distributions. The drawback here is that we are slow to get new stuff, but that is intentional. Lucky here, that Upstream is including some much newer stuff, in v.5.2! :-) Lanny _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
on 6-19-2008 1:15 PM Rob Townley spake the following:
Security > Stability when it comes to web browsers and i wonder if 1.5 is more secure than 2.14. i wonder when 1.x will not have security patches anymore. rh must document that somewhere and i will have to find it.
That is probably the reason for the new version. Most of the time RedHat only issues new versions when backporting becomes difficult/impossible. They are almost as protective as Debian has been. A web browser crashing on a distro originally designed for servers was probably a low priority for them. They probably assume that a browser is usually used to read docs or download packages.
On 6/19/08, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
on 6-19-2008 1:15 PM Rob Townley spake the following:
Security > Stability when it comes to web browsers and i wonder if 1.5 is more secure than 2.14. i wonder when 1.x will not have security patches anymore. rh must document that somewhere and i will have to find it.
That is probably the reason for the new version. Most of the time RedHat only issues new versions when backporting becomes difficult/impossible. They are almost as protective as Debian has been. A web browser crashing on a distro originally designed for servers was probably a low priority for them. They probably assume that a browser is usually used to read docs or download packages.
I agree with Scott about the philosophy involved. Although Upstream sells a Desktop version of RHEL, the vast majority of installations are on Servers and Desktop users are a much lower priority. Those of us who are Desktop users are lucky, with what's coming in 5.2.
Rob Townley wrote on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:57:05 -0500:
Why do distributions put in very old versions of Firefox - 1.5 when 2.0 has been out for a year or more and 3.0 was just released.
Because at *that time* when the distribution was finalized it seemed to be the best decision and a newer *stable* version was not available or seemed to have other drawbacks. 5.2 is *not* a new distribution. 5.0 is/was the new distribution and all upgrades on it are meant to fix security and other bugs, not to ship new versions of software. Upgrades of RHEL are not there to please people and add new features each time. That's what Fedora is for. And remember that each new distribution also goes thru a testing phase, so the decision which software version to include has to happen even earlier. That decision will only be scrapped if there are really good reasons and there's still enough time to do some testing.
Kai
Lanny Marcus wrote:
I'm looking forward to upgrading to 5.2! If for nothing else, for the newer version of Mozilla Firefox. The current version (1.5.0.12) crashes, very frequently, at web sites I use.
You can always put a newer version of FF in /home/${USER}/firefox and then put that directory at the beginning of $PATH in your .bash_profile
No other changes are necessary and next time you log in voila! when you click the FF icon in the menus, the newer version gets launched. There is absolutely no reason to inflict that kind of pain on yourself when newer, more stable versions of the same software are available.
I actually do the opposite - I run Fedora 9 on this workstation, and it comes with FF3. The problem is that Google Browser Sync is not supported under FF3, and it will be discontinued later this year, so I will have to run FF2 on all my systems until Mozilla Weave comes out with a version that's similar enough with Google Sync in terms of features. Hopefully that will happen pretty soon.
On 6/20/08, Florin Andrei florin@andrei.myip.org wrote: <snip>
You can always put a newer version of FF in /home/${USER}/firefox and then put that directory at the beginning of $PATH in your .bash_profile
No other changes are necessary and next time you log in voila! when you click the FF icon in the menus, the newer version gets launched. There is absolutely no reason to inflict that kind of pain on yourself when newer, more stable versions of the same software are available.
I should have done that, awhile back! Since 5.2 will be out next week, I'll wait for that now.
on 6-19-2008 5:37 AM Robert Moskowitz spake the following:
I have a few servers that I really have to build already. Got to buckle down and get it done; no more waiting for 5.2 as a 'reason' to put it off for another day.
I will be building a local repository for 5.2 as soon as the ISOs are posted (well as soon as my 768Kb DSL link will allow), so what am I looking at for the 'cost' of the upgrade?
Your breath will suddenly be minty fresh, your hair will grow back, you will lose weight and gain muscle mass, even your "lower regions" will become bigger. For women, your hips will firm and your belly will be flat. You will look 10 years younger and feel 20 years younger! You will be the envy of your peers!
Now seriously;
What do you mean by "cost". If you mirror the upstream release, that should be your biggest bandwidth usage. Then point your servers at your local repo and "yum update". Then probably a reboot as there is a new kernel release.
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I have a few servers that I really have to build already. Got to buckle down and get it done; no more waiting for 5.2 as a 'reason' to put it off for another day.
I will be building a local repository for 5.2 as soon as the ISOs are posted (well as soon as my 768Kb DSL link will allow), so what am I looking at for the 'cost' of the upgrade?
The cost depends on what you need to do to support the distribution, which depends on your needs. For me I just started at a new company a few months ago who standardized on RHEL 4.x. I'm just starting to prepare CentOS 5.1 for use, it takes me about 3-4 days of work preparing our environment to support a new major release. Lots of custom RPMs, custom configurations etc. Though when CentOS 5.2 comes out the work will be minimal, probably 2-3 hours. At least at this company, the bulk of the load is run in Java which is easy to deploy. My last company ran the bulk of the stuff in Ruby on Rails, and there was a good 35 RPMs I had to build to support each version/architecture just for Ruby. The package management in Ruby sucks so I turned all of the ruby packages into RPMs.
You don't give any indication what version your using now(if any), or what your using the systems for, so I think it's impossible to answer the question without more information.
nate
-
Florin Andrei -
Johnny Hughes -
Kai Schaetzl -
Lanny Marcus -
nate -
Rob Townley -
Robert Moskowitz -
Scott Silva