Re: Friday Flames - What to do with RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2

[Jim Popovitch <jimpop yahoo com>]

Jim Popovitch wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 10:08 -0700, Tim Thome wrote:
> > > My last words on the subject...
> > >
> > > The RH9 GA Release, as far as I can tell, was 03/31/03. Putting RH's  
> > > timeline for life-cycle, maintenance should be carried on for a  
> > > minimum of 5 years.
> > >
> > > I think this is probably unreasonable, as the team's resources are  
> > > limited, which is why we're having this discussion.
> > >
> > > However, as Eric wrote, there are complex production systems that 
> > > are  running RH9, and the pain of upgrading these to the 2.6 kernel, 
> > > these  systems may not be able to make that leap. This bar is going 
> > > to be  hit with other distro's as well, including the RHEL clones.
> > >
> > > The only alternative for RH9 users is to migrate outside of the  
> > > direct RH family, and this is bad karma for us...
> >
> > No it's not.
> > migrate to centos 3.
> >
> > it's a 2.4 kernel, it's a rebuild project, it follows rhel3 completely
> > and is damned-near perfect for leaving rhl9 AND it is free.
>
> Tim make some valid points, and I don't think that telling him and 
> others to migrate to another distro (even if it's just like his current) 
> should be something done casually.  I suspect that there may be lots of 

  ^^^
  That should be "shouldn't", "shouldn't be something done casually"

-Jim P.

> people with RH9 who need notification now that they will need to have a 
> plan by XX date.  I think that everyone is in agreement that RH73 and 
> RH9 are going away, now lets get from "going away" to "gone" without 
> giving people ulcers.  Simply migrating to centos 3 might equate to 
> three or four months worth of effort by some people.
>
> -Jim P.