Tom Lane wrote:
> shadrack <shadkeene@hotmail.com> writes:
>> My basic question is...are php4 and postgresql 8.3 compatible?
>> I'm running Linux Redhat 3.4.6, php4.3.9, and postgresql 8.3. I know,
>> some of those versions are old...its government, and I unfortunately
>> don't have control over the version.
>
> Er ... Red Hat *what*? I don't think they ever used such a version
> number. If they did it was a very long time ago (for calibration,
> they were just about to release RHL 7.3 when I joined the company,
> in 2001). You could probably scare the powers-that-be into letting
> you update the thing just on the grounds of it still being full of
> Y2K bugs.
Well, the first Red Hat Linux I'm used was 4.1 (I still remember the
code name, Vanderbilt). And it was '97 I think. So if you're *really*
thinking of RHL 3 something, wikipedia says about early RH revision
history:
# 1.0 (Mother's Day), November 3, 1994 (Linux 1.2.8)
# 1.1 (Mother's Day+0.1), August 1, 1995 (Linux 1.2.11)
# 2.0, September 20, 1995 (Linux 1.2.13-2)
# 2.1, November 23, 1995 (Linux 1.2.13)
# 3.0.3 (Picasso), May 1, 1996 - first release supporting DEC Alpha
# 4.0 (Colgate), October 3, 1996 (Linux 2.0.18) - first release supporting SPARC
# 4.1 (Vanderbilt), February 3, 1997 (Linux 2.0.27)
which reminds me, I've used Colgate a bit too. Back in those years I've used
also Postres95 (but on Slackware I suspect). Anyway, if I'm not mistaken,
the birth of PostgreSQL proper (6.0 I think) was at that time, '96.
The OP must refer to RHEL 3 something, it can't be RHL 3. He'd have a
tyrannosaur in his backyard and he's crying for help because he's got
a broken leg. We go "send pictures!". Quite seriously I'd really like
to see a picture of a running RHL 3 still in production. Maybe even
at RH won't mind one. Too bad uptime wouldn't show more than 497 days...
.TM.
