Re: Natural upgrade path for RedHat 9? - Mailing list pgsql-general

After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, dante@lorenso.com ("D. Dante Lorenso") belched out:
> This isn't entirely PG related, but...
>
> Does anyone know what the natural upgrade path from
> RedHat 9 is?  I'm wondering if anyone on the PostgreSQL
> team is working with redhat to package and bundle versions
> of PostgreSQL for the latest redhat.
>
> Is there going to be a RedHat 10?  Or are we all supposed
> to choose a path of RH Enterprise vs Fedora Core?  I have
> about 10 to 20 Redhat 9 machines in dev/qa/production that
> I'm trying to plan the futures for.

The latter is definitely the set of choices RHAT wants you to be
planning with.

> Any sysadmins/dbs wanna chime in on this?  And no, no OS flame
> wars...I just wanna know about RedHat9 --> going forward.  This
> is what I'm building now:
>
>     - RedHat 9
>     - PostgreSQL 7.4
>     - Apache 1.3.29 / Mod_SSL 2.8.16-1.3.29
>     <./source/mod_ssl-2.8.16-1.3.29.tar.gz>
>     - PHP 4.3.4
>     - Java J2SE 1.4.2
>
> Like...for instance, will my build in 6 months look something
> like this?
>
>     - RedHat 10, Fedora Core ?, RedHat Enterprise ?
>     - PostgreSQL 7.x
>     - Apache 2.x / Mod_SSL <./source/mod_ssl-2.8.16-1.3.29.tar.gz>
>     - PHP 5.0
>     - Java J2SE 1.5

There won't be a "RedHat 10."

I think you'll find that MANY other organizations are debating this.
We have been asking somewhat similar questions at work; our
"test-du-jour" today involved getting FreeBSD running on a Pretty Big
Xeon box, demonstrating that we're looking further afield than
"Fedora" for alternatives.

Many essentially chose to use "Red Hat Linux" because people were
already running it at home, and could freely toss it onto a box at the
office any time they need an extra web server.

I think that particular reason is the foremost reason for Red Hat
Linux being so widely deployed.  And RHAT has chosen to _eliminate_
that foremost reason.

It is _not_ evident that Fedora will succeed at attracting widespread
community support, particularly when it is clear that the purpose for
RHAT creating is the self-serving one of getting the community to
manage the software that they used to support so that they can
integrate it into a _MUCH_ more expensive set of "RHES/RHAS" software.

If you have some goodly "Pointy Haired Boss" types around that like
using terms like "risk management," it seems a wise idea to consider
alternatives to a Single Sourced Solution.  If having Microsoft as the
Only Vendor for Windows causes discomfort, and the presence of AMD as
_alternative_ vendors for IA-32 hardware provides comfort, I would
think that depending on RHAT as a Sole Source Vendor should be a
matter of some discomfort...
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html
"People who don't use computers are more sociable, reasonable, and ...
less twisted" -- Arthur Norman