Alan DeKok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hugh Messenger wrote: > > <flame> > > I'm just wondering why some of the major Linux releases are still > shipping > > 1.1.3. > > There are versions of redhat that still use 1.0.4.
Ouch. > Redhat either > doesn't care, or doesn't have the resources to keep up to date with > thousands of open source packages. Which is the ironic part, as the only thing I'm paying Redhat for is the packaging and upgrading of compatible open source components. Essentially, the expectation that when I type 'up2date' it doesn't mean "up2dateasof1999". I realize that one of the "selling points" of RHEL is that it is not bleeding edge, and doesn't update components as regularly as other flavors of Linux. But there's a difference between "not bleeding edge" and "severely infested with bit rot". I think what chaps my ass is that they are punting the resulting legacy support headaches straight into open source developers lap. Maybe change the license so it has a rider like "you may freely distribute this product, as long as you are distributing a version no more than 3 minor revision numbers older than the current release". :) > This is where systems like Debian have a *huge* win. I've been taking a hard look at Debian of late. It's that or Centos. A case of Better vs More Convenient. > Alan DeKok. -- hugh - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
