On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 06:40:08AM -0700, Stuart Jansen wrote: > Don't user RH9. Just don't. It doesn't support SATA. It doesn't > support all kinds of modern hardware. It doesn't get bug fixes. It > doesn't get security updates. Would you use Windows 98? Of course > not! So why use RH9? > > This is probably for work. Tell your bosses they're being too > cheap. If a vendor only supports RH9, drop kick the vendor.
I can think of several legitimate reasons why a client might want to
stick with an older version of a distribution. Some involve custom
apps built for a specific environment, certification (i.e., CAPP/EAL4)
and contract requirements, overhead involved in migration to new
versions (especially when the machines are not connected to an
external network), and so forth.
A co-worker of mine still runs the 2.4 kernel on his MythTV (v. 0.16)
Slackware box, simply because the thing ``just works.'' He is more
likely to patch his kernel for SATA support than try to hoist his
kernel to the 2.6 branch; it would simply save him time and effort.
Mike
.___________________________________________________________________.
Michael A. Halcrow
Security Software Engineer, IBM Linux Technology Center
GnuPG Fingerprint: 419C 5B1E 948A FA73 A54C 20F5 DB40 8531 6DCA 8769
"We live, thank God, in a secular society."
- Joseph Campbell
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
