more a terminology usage question than anything else, but in a couple of weeks, i'll be teaching the first of a few sessions on RHEL admin and, unsurprisingly, i'll be using centos (as i've done in the past).
when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something and i'll have my contact look into it: if people *initially* install 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new releases come out?
obviously, i have to ask my contact to verify what the client has been doing all this time but, in general, what's the normal behaviour for people running centos/rhel? and is there a way to examine an install to see how updated it's been since that original installation?
i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more appropriate choice. thanks for any tips.
rday
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca wrote:
:
when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something and i'll have my contact look into it: if people *initially* install 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new releases come out?
Terminology: generally an upgrade refers to moving from one major release to another, whereas an update is moving forward to the newest sub-release. I.e., CentOS 5.5 -> CentOS 6.0 will be an upgrade (and not recommended as an upgrade per se), whereas CentOS 5.3 -> CentOS 5.5 is an update.
obviously, i have to ask my contact to verify what the client has been doing all this time but, in general, what's the normal behaviour for people running centos/rhel? and is there a way to examine an install to see how updated it's been since that original installation?
Check /etc/redhat-release; also uname -a if you know which kernel to look for.
i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more appropriate choice. thanks for any tips.
They're both CentOS 5. The differences are mainly (but not exclusively) in security enhancements, upgrades to applications (like Firefox or OO) and the like. I would check to be sure if you think it will make that much difference (and it might - 5.3 is what, a year old now?).
HTH
Mark
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:18:58AM -0700, Mark wrote:
Check /etc/redhat-release; also uname -a if you know which kernel to look for.
Actually, a combination of "uname -a" for kernel rev and then "rpm -q centos-release" is a more much sane and accurate method to identify which CentOS release is in use.
John
At Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:11:35 -0400 (EDT) CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
more a terminology usage question than anything else, but in a couple of weeks, i'll be teaching the first of a few sessions on RHEL admin and, unsurprisingly, i'll be using centos (as i've done in the past).
when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something and i'll have my contact look into it: if people *initially* install 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new releases come out?
Depends. Most people do update as new updates come out. Doing 'yum update' regularly will update to newer point releases automagically. Some people (for various reasons) don't regularly update their systems.
Look in /etc/issue
obviously, i have to ask my contact to verify what the client has been doing all this time but, in general, what's the normal behaviour for people running centos/rhel? and is there a way to examine an install to see how updated it's been since that original installation?
i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more appropriate choice. thanks for any tips.
On a certain level there really isn't much difference from a general admin POV -- it does not really make sense to go into a certain level of detail (like specific version numbers). Basic functionallity is not going to change from point version to point version.
rday
i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more appropriate choice. thanks for any tips.
On a certain level there really isn't much difference from a general admin POV -- it does not really make sense to go into a certain level of detail (like specific version numbers). Basic functionallity is not going to change from point version to point version.
There is a limited amount of truth to this - but it depends on the topic being taught. Redhat usually adds functionality to the point releases as they go - a few examples in the current 5.X release cycle being KVM virtualisation, postgres-8.4 and the ext4 filesystem.....
The X part of 5.X refers to a point in time of Redhat... but that really is a point in time and in terms of maintaining a system there is only RHEL5... there really is no point installing 5.3 when you should keep up to date on updates and particularly depending on the topic to be taught as well.
James
Unless the curriculum covers updates.
Peace, Allan
James Hogarth wrote:
i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more appropriate choice. thanks for any tips.
On a certain level there really isn't much difference from a general admin POV -- it does not really make sense to go into a certain level of detail (like specific version numbers). Basic functionallity is not going to change from point version to point version.
There is a limited amount of truth to this - but it depends on the topic being taught. Redhat usually adds functionality to the point releases as they go - a few examples in the current 5.X release cycle being KVM virtualisation, postgres-8.4 and the ext4 filesystem.....
The X part of 5.X refers to a point in time of Redhat... but that really is a point in time and in terms of maintaining a system there is only RHEL5... there really is no point installing 5.3 when you should keep up to date on updates and particularly depending on the topic to be taught as well.
James _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 01:29:48PM -0400, Robert Heller wrote:
Depends. Most people do update as new updates come out. Doing 'yum update' regularly will update to newer point releases automagically. Some people (for various reasons) don't regularly update their systems.
Look in /etc/issue
Why? That file bears no relation to system identification purposes. "uname -a" followed by "rpm -q centos-release" will properly identify a system release level.
John
May be. cat /etc/redhat-release is the easy way
Greets Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Claro.
-----Original Message----- From: "John R. Dennison" jrd@gerdesas.com Sender: centos-bounces@centos.org Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:56:33 To: Robert Hellerheller@deepsoft.com Reply-To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Cc: CentOS mailing listcentos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] what people really mean when they say they're running "5.3"?
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 08/08/10 9:11 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something and i'll have my contact look into it: if people *initially* install 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new releases come out?
sadly, I find far too many people who installed RHEL x.y, but don't have an RHN subscription so they NEVER UPDATE THE SYSTEM.
I do find this behaviour very odd... if you are not intending to get support from redhat why not just install CentOS in the beginning so you can still get updates? Ah well...
Sent from Android Mobile
On 8 Aug 2010 18:58, "John R Pierce" pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 08/08/10 9:11 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something and i'll have my contact look into it: if people *initially* install 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new releases come out?
sadly, I find far too many people who installed RHEL x.y, but don't have an RHN subscription so they NEVER UPDATE THE SYSTEM.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 08/08/10 1:12 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
I do find this behaviour very odd... if you are not intending to get support from redhat why not just install CentOS in the beginning so you can still get updates? Ah well...
fairly often, its due to some perceived vendor requirements on the part of operations people. Or, the server was purchased with a RHEL license, but it wasn't renewed. I have to work with operations people in overseas manufacturing plants, who are _extremely_ conservative about applying updates. if its not broken, they won't fix it. as most of these systems are single function (run a java based application suite used for factory floor message routing, or run an oracle/postgres/whatever database along with some java stuff that front ends for the database), most updates have nothing to do with the mission.
Why install RedHat without a subscription? Because all the world knows RedHat. Why not switch to CentOS and get updates? Because CentOS is one of the best-kept secrets of the web.
How many google searches on RedHat and Updates and License return a link to the CentOS sites? The wikipedia entry does, none of the others in the "first 10" hits, so finding CentOS takes knowing that it's there.
________________________________
From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of James Hogarth Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 4:13 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] what people really mean when they say they're running"5.3"?
I do find this behaviour very odd... if you are not intending to get support from redhat why not just install CentOS in the beginning so you can still get updates? Ah well...
Sent from Android Mobile
On 8 Aug 2010 18:58, "John R Pierce" pierce@hogranch.com wrote: > On 08/08/10 9:11 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL >> that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily >> install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something >> and i'll have my contact look into it: if people *initially* install >> 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new >> releases come out? > > sadly, I find far too many people who installed RHEL x.y, but don't have > an RHN subscription so they NEVER UPDATE THE SYSTEM. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
On 9 August 2010 16:28, Brunner, Brian T. BBrunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
Why install RedHat without a subscription? Because all the world knows RedHat. Why not switch to CentOS and get updates? Because CentOS is one of the best-kept secrets of the web.
How many google searches on RedHat and Updates and License return a link to the CentOS sites? The wikipedia entry does, none of the others in the "first 10" hits, so finding CentOS takes knowing that it's there.
But then I'd argue that any competent systems administrator looking after Red Hat systems should be at least aware of derivatives of RHEL... CentOS being the most commonly thought of but of course Scientific and Oracle Unbreakable exist as well for differing levels of support or markets.... and there used to be Whitebox a few years back too....
James
-
allan -
Brunner, Brian T. -
James Hogarth -
Jesús Hinojosa -
John R Pierce -
John R. Dennison -
Mark -
Robert Heller -
Robert P. J. Day