On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 13:38, Mike McCarty wrote: > > Just as everyone said about Red Hat Linux 5.0, Red Hat Linux 7.0 and, to > > a lesser extend, Red Hat Linux 6.0 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 before. > > Hmm. Maybe what you're saying is that RH altogether is not > what I had in mind. Or that I'll have to adjust my thinking > if I intend to continue using RH at all. What he means here is that Fedora corresponds closely to the X.0 releases from RH before the name and numbering scheme change and RHEL corresponds to the X.2 and X.3 RH releases (up through 7.3) in the extent that they are tested. That is, new major version numbers of the upstream packages were rolled into the X.0 releases as in Fedora now. For the X.1, X.2, X.3 releases no 'new feature' changes were done, just security and bugfixes backported out of development work on the packages. Likewise, except for a few things like Mysql 4.x, everything in Centos4 is the same as went through wide use (testing...) in FC3. > I don't know. I am new to Linux. I'm accustomed to Solaris. > We weren't asked to upgrade every 6 mos with Solaris. More like > every 4-5 years. I gave up on Solaris many years ago because of this - and the fact that they made you pay to get those long overdue fixes. > > Then by the same definition, so was Red Hat Linux. > > Ok. Then RHL is beta test. I think you missed the distinction between the old RHL and RHEL. RHL X.0 releases were (unofficially) beta like FCx is now. RHL X.2 and X.3 were the same product with about everything fixed. Likewise FCx is where new code first meets widely varying conditions and RHEL is where it has accumulated the fixes that no one would have known it needed without the FCx exposure. > And I appreciate your efforts, here. I'm not sure "blame" is the > right word. As I said, no criticism intended. It is whatever > it is. I'm trying to evaluate what is best for my situation. > What is best for yours may not be what is best for mine. The part you need to understand is that if you are developing something that will not go into production for a while you probably want to be on the latest FC you can get, because as those base package releases accumulate their own bugfixes, they will become the 'next' stable release of RHEL. And most of the patches go into the upstream package anyway so regardless of the distribution, the versions you find in FC4 right now will be close to what everyone runs in production later on. > Ok, that seems fair enough. Perhaps simply watching FC closely and > "upgrading" on my own schedule (not theirs) is good enough. Right now, Centos4 is a fairly good choice because it is not all that old. If you are running server software it will probably be suitable for a long time. If you are running desktop software you will probably want to update before you are forced to because that is still evolving and improving rapidly - and if you are developing desktop software you will need to be working with the version that will be in use next. Centos3 is still usable as a server but you wouldn't want it as a desktop now. > I am doing contract work on software for pharmacists. Server-side or a GUI client? > So, what would be wrong with staying with FC2, and using Fedora > Legacy in more or less the same manner? If you watch bugfix updates for FC2 vs Centos3 which is even older, you'll see that legacy fixes aren't a real priority. > Is FC3 really that much different from the last FC2 + all updates > + Legacy? Yes, every FC release introduces some new major version number updates in upstream packages, where the updates within the release don't. > I wonder why the pressure to move on? I get advice from time to > time on the FC echo making it sound like FC2 is a danger just being > on my machine. But if it's sooooo bad, then why was it released > in the first place? If it had not been released, the bugs it included would never have been found and fixed. As much as you want to blame RH for pushing out the buggy stuff, you have to give them credit for most of the exposure that results in improvement. > > Fedora Core 4 is another shift, although not nearly as bad as Fedora > > Core 3. > > But you have suggested with some amount of force that I should > move away from FC2 to FC3. FC3 is at the end of the cycle where the new bugs in the new code are fixed, FC4 is just starting. If you run FC3, you want FC3 with current updates. > >>Also, the firewall prevents sharing with WinXXX, unless it is > >>disabled. I prefer not to run without a firewall. > > > > > > ??? This has nothing to do with Fedora Core. > > There is a reported known defect in the firewall for FC4 which > prevents using Windows Shares. Why do you say this has nothing > to do with FC? If it is a fedora bug it will get a fix, usually within the same version release. If it is really a kernel/iptables bug it may need a fix in the upstream package. > To put it another way: every install/upgrade/whatever one runs the > risk of data loss. Since data in this case is my livlihood, I'd > rather do it less often than more. That doesn't make much sense. If you care about your data, make backups that will survive whatever happens to the machine. External hard drives, CD and DVD writers are all inexpensive and suitable for this. > > So all you will accomplish is a wipe and new install of CentOS 4, only > > to be disappointed. Which is why I said you might want to try an "yum > > upgrade" to Fedora Core 3 first. > > IIU you, you're saying that the churn in CentOS is just about as > bad. No, but as a side effect the jumps are bigger. Centos 3 still runs the 2.4 kernel and is still maintained and usable but because the apps don't get version-level updates it isn't a good choice for a desktop now. Centos 4 is approximately the same 'age' as FC3 so it is more up to date but still well-tested. The jump from FC2 to Centos4 would be approximately the same app-version-wise as FC3 but should be good for several more years. > Since I am a complete newbie to *NIX admin, I find it somewhat > daunting to contemplate a wipe/reinstall. I don't want, for > example, to have to re-build and re-install the cross-compiler > which targets MSDOS. And other applications. And my /home tree, > which has a great deal of stuff installed in it. You really, really want a backup of that stuff - and generally you want to save the commands to do anything slow or difficult in a script so repeating it becomes painless. > I guess I'm pretty ignorant about this. What do you think I might > miss from FC in going to CentOS? It will probably be a long time before you'll get the next Gnome, KDE, Evolution, etc. releases dropped in your lap. With FC, all the new stuff comes with the next release. -- Les Mikesell les at futuresource.com