Re: redhat linux 9.0 iso on campus for download?

From: David Johnson <davidj_at_icsi.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 11:02:12 PST

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Pardoe <janp@eecs.berkeley.edu> writes:

    Jan> You only gave a kernel version. I think that translates to
    Jan> RHAS 2.1, not 3? Version 3 was released a couple of months
    Jan> ago, so if you're concerned about being up to date, you might
    Jan> want to use it.

We're bring up Redhat Enterprise Linux 3.0 at ICSI, with a kickstart
install and a moderate amount of customization. I.e. there's a pretty
long script that's run after installation and a bunch of extra RPMs we
put on each machine.

My impression so far is that RHEL3 is not so different from RH7.3 (our
previous supported version), at least from the perspective of
e.g. packages, etc files, init.d stuff and the like. When we moved
from RH6.2 to RH7.3 there was a huge number of differences - it felt
like a major change. From RH7.3 to RHEL3 any changes to the scripts
are mostly minor tweaks, and in many cases removing fixes for problems
in RH7.3 that are fixed out-of-the-box in RHEL3. At least for the WS
version, RHEL3 just feels like a newer, more solid RH7.3. My
impression is that the biggest differences are in the support, the
marketing and no doubt a collection of large-system-specific kernel
patches.

David.

    Jan> My observations on RHAS 2.1 and 3 (we're running both) vs. 9:

    Jan> - I'm only running servers, so I can't comment on user-level
    Jan> software (gnome/kde, open office, etc.)

    Jan> - Red Hat removed tripwire from RHAS 3 (it was in 2.1). On
    Jan> the one hand, tripwire really seems like a dead project, so I
    Jan> don't blame them. On the other hand, I think they should
    Jan> have made the effort to include *some* file integrity
    Jan> checker, especially since those of use using RHAS 2.1 or Red
    Jan> Hat Linux 7/8/9 have gotten used to having tripwire.

    Jan> - RHAS 2.1 includes lynx; RHAS 3 does not. Apache expects
    Jan> lynx as a command-line http server checker, and I'm used to
    Jan> it, so I miss it. I don't like links/elinks, so it's not an
    Jan> acceptable substitute for me.

    Jan> Other than these few gripes, RHAS is just Red Hat to me. It
    Jan> uses the same rpm package system and the same update
    Jan> mechanism (up2date), and files are where I expect to find
    Jan> them. My only maintenance headache is the Dell server whose
    Jan> RAID controller is not supported in the stock RHAS 2.1
    Jan> kernel. This means extra steps for every kernel upgrade. It
    Jan> might be supported in the RHAS 3 kernel, but I'm not
    Jan> interested in a full OS upgrade on our production database
    Jan> server. I can't really fault Red Hat for this; I just
    Jan> happened to buy my server a few months before they came out
    Jan> with RHAS 3.

    Jan> Yes, all reports are that Red Hat linux 9 will not be
    Jan> supported after April. Progeny is offering for-fee supported
    Jan> for abandoned Red Hat distributions, if that interests you.
    Jan> There's also the Fedora Legacy Project
    Jan> (http://www.fedoralegacy.org/), which I hear plans to support
    Jan> Red Hat Linux 9 when Red Hat stops support. It's a new
    Jan> project, so there's no track record for it.

    Jan> Jan
    Jan> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jan> Jan Pardoe, Sysadmin/Programmer/DBA janp@eecs.berkeley.edu
    Jan> Administrative Computing Group 510-643-7848 (voice) EECS, UC
    Jan> Berkeley 510-642-5775 (fax)

    Jan> International & Area Studies Computer Support
    Jan> <iascss@uclink4.berkeley.edu> writes:

>> On a related note... So, we are installing Redhat enterprise
>> advanced server 2.4.9.-e.24 on a new machine that we plan to
>> take live soon. we have some questions 1. How does it compare
>> to version 9? It seems like it is not as feature laden. Any
>> comments? 2. So to confirm, version 9 will not be supported
>> after April? 3. And finally, any opinions on the two versions
>> as far as ease of maintenance?
>>
>> We are relatively new to Linux in our shop; we've got version 8
>> running right now. we're pretty comfortable with that version.
>> The enterprise version seems like a step back.
>>
>> Bill Gross
>>

    Jan> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jan> The following was automatically added to this message by the
    Jan> list server:

    Jan> For information about Micronet, including subscribing to or
    Jan> unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out about
    Jan> upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
    Jan> <http://micronet.berkeley.edu/>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.berkeley.edu/>.
Received on Wed Feb 4 11:03:39 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 04 2004 - 11:03:40 PST