A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support...

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Edmund White wrote:

> AIX, SCO and HP-UX customers to HP/Compaq servers with appropriate
> versions of Redhat (7.x, 8) and our software on top. Luckily, the software
> is easily portable and can run unmodified on any unix variant. Redhat 7.2,
> 7.3 and 8.0 have proven to be the best match for our software/hardware
> solution. The hardcore Compaq/HP Proliant server hardware support (for
> ML370's and ML570's) is there. HP's agents add temperature, SCSI/array and

HP, Sun, Dell, IBM, Fujuitsu-Siemens, BEA, Oracle ... and Red Hat are going to
certify servers and software _only_ with RHEL family.

> Now, I have 100+ Linux servers around the country, and a stream of new
> customers. I've frozen new deployments at Redhat 8.0 because Redhat 9 was
> a bit unstable for us and didn't allow me to use the HP/Compaq-specific
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

did you fill a bug report at bugzilla ?

> hardware agents/drivers. So, we've everything from 7.0 through 8.0 in the

Yes, RHL 9 doesn't have lot of official support from HW/SW vendors. And
believe that HW/SW vendors will drop 'official' support to EOL RHL(7.x, 8.0..)

> patches for Redhat 7.0. I feel guilty installing 8.0 on new boxes because
> I know support for it will be dropped at the end of the year. By Dec. 31,
> all of my systems will be "unsupported." This looks awful because we're

awful ? They sent a notice on Dec-2002 about that.

> I don't wish to buy into Redhat's Enterprise Linux because I don't
> understand what I'm paying for. *I'm* the Redhat support. I just need

*longer lifetime and updates*. What are you looking for?

> I also build the kernels for each of the servers. I use vanilla kernel.org
> 2.4.21 source with additional XFS patches. We sell 2, 4 and 8-way Proliant
                                ^^^    danger!!! ;-)

And *2.4.21 has security bugs*
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0307.2/1821.html
better stay with a vendor kernel or with *latest latest latest* of kernel.org

> servers. Am I missing out on anything from the "optimized" Redhat Advanced
> Server kernels? I downloaded the RHEL 3.0 kernel and looked at the 200+
> patches they make to the plain 2.4.21 source. Other than the
> hyperthreading patch, none of the enhancements will make that much of a
> difference in my company's application. Would using my stable kernel setup
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't belive that, Did you test a _standard_ RHEL kernel against a
kernel of kernel.org or RHL ?

> with RHEL negate the purpose of using that OS? Patching XFS on TOP of
> their already heavily-modified kernel is close to impossible.

Sorry, but neither a kernel of kernel.org nor RHL kernels are _ideal_ for
a 8-way or 4-way servers. RHEL has a lot of backports from 2.6.

> not sure who they're targeting. I would imagine that most firms that
> select Redhat Advanced server and are willing to pay the price
> (>$1000/license) would have a staff talented enough to support it. So why
     ^^^^

prices are from 180$ to 2500$, or buy RHPW at 85-100$.

> 8.0. I'm afraid to recommend RHEL 3.0 for these critical servers because
> the userbase is going to be tiny, and we'll essentially be flushing-out
> bugs..... in production. That's not a good situation.... * Sidenote: After

:-? Do you believe that RHEL kernels are untested?

> looking at Redhat's Enterprise kernel's default .config, I'm surprised
> that they still enable HAM radio, PCMCIA, ISDN and other rarely-used (at
> least in the US) functions by default. I mean, I choose to compile my own
> kernels.... but I'm pretty sure that their target market for RHEL won't
> bother. Odd.

It doesn't matter. They are *modules*

> Either way, since these servers are humming along without incident, I
> don't have much motivation to reinstall and move to an untested (by my
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

what do your boss pay for ? X-D

> application's need) RHEL. Having continued support for RedHat 8 would be
> very useful for those in my situation. I know this project is in its
> infacy, but I think that 7.2-9.0 are must-support distributions. Please
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and who are going to work on it?
This is a volunteer project. Please, a hand up ;-)

-- 
HTML mails are going to trash automagically