Thread: Natural upgrade path for RedHat 9?
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.
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
Thanks,
Dante
"D. Dante Lorenso" <dante@lorenso.com> writes:
> Is there going to be a RedHat 10? Or are we all supposed
> to choose a path of RH Enterprise vs Fedora Core?
The current plans do not include a Red Hat 10 --- Enterprise and Fedora
are it.
Now, I have been working for Red Hat long enough to know that their
product plans change constantly. It could be that some intermediate
product level will re-emerge. But I wouldn't bet on it.
regards, tom lane
On Friday 09 January 2004 03:13, D. Dante Lorenso wrote: > > 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. It's RH-Enterprise/Fedora from here in, the bonus should be that you know where you stand with RH-Ent. I can't see availability being a problem, Fedora is going to have all the standard packages available and even in the worst case scenario will be around for a few years. RedHat can't afford *not* to support their Enterprise product, so that's about as safe a choice as you can get. The question is whether you want free, but rapidly changing with no corporate support, 350 USD/EUR per year with regular patches, 1500 USD/EUR per year with support too. RedHat have some documents on their site describing the differences. There has also been talk about third-parties providing security-only patches to older RedHat versions, but I don't know if any of these has/will happen. In your case, I'm guessing it depends on your budget. If your machines cost 5000 each then I'm guessing 350 p.a. isn't too bad. On the other hand if they are cheap 700 EUR white-boxes, the price might not look so good. They seem to be your options - the beauty is, if you don't like them you can always switch to another distribution. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
hello i have been used RH for over 5 yrs and some of our server are going to RH AS and most of our workstations are moving to fedora i have fedora servers in testing right now(PG 7.4 and 7.3) and have not seen any major problems as for extended rh9,7.. support you can check out http://www.tummy.com/Software/krud i have used them and i love the cd based idea jeff Richard Huxton wrote: >On Friday 09 January 2004 03:13, D. Dante Lorenso wrote: > > >>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. >> >> > >It's RH-Enterprise/Fedora from here in, the bonus should be that you know >where you stand with RH-Ent. I can't see availability being a problem, Fedora >is going to have all the standard packages available and even in the worst >case scenario will be around for a few years. RedHat can't afford *not* to >support their Enterprise product, so that's about as safe a choice as you can >get. > >The question is whether you want free, but rapidly changing with no corporate >support, 350 USD/EUR per year with regular patches, 1500 USD/EUR per year >with support too. RedHat have some documents on their site describing the >differences. > >There has also been talk about third-parties providing security-only patches >to older RedHat versions, but I don't know if any of these has/will happen. > >In your case, I'm guessing it depends on your budget. If your machines cost >5000 each then I'm guessing 350 p.a. isn't too bad. On the other hand if they >are cheap 700 EUR white-boxes, the price might not look so good. > >They seem to be your options - the beauty is, if you don't like them you can >always switch to another distribution. > > >
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