On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Jos Vos j...@xos.nl wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 02:45:29PM -0500, Jack Neely wrote:
There are multiple internal and Red Hat partner-only spins of RHEL
before the public betas are released. There are lots of bugs to show
some good progress on RHEL 6, but not
Once upon a time, Olt, Joseph j...@ti.com said:
Tom and Chris,
I don't have the reference off hand, but I believe the recommendation of
reinstalling and not upgrading was from RHEL3 to RHEL4 because of the kernel
going from 2.4.x to 2.6.x. It may have been in the release notes. However,
Of Tom Sightler
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:02 PM
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list
Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] Whither RHEL6?
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 12:35 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom Sightlertt...@tuxyturvy.com said:
I don't
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:52 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Olt, Joseph j...@ti.com said:
Tom and Chris,
I don't have the reference off hand, but I believe the recommendation of
reinstalling and not upgrading was from RHEL3 to RHEL4 because of the
kernel going from 2.4.x
On 10/02/10 13:52, Chris Adams wrote:
24.1. Determining Whether to Upgrade or Re-Install
Red Hat does not support upgrades from earlier major versions
...
Although anaconda provides an option for upgrading from earlier major
versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to Red Hat Enterprise
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Tru64 also supported in-place version upgrades, unlike RHEL, so if you
were running 5.0A and really needed something in 5.1B, you didn't have
to format the drive or build a new system (rolling updates in a cluster
means users never even see
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com said:
There's always Fedora then---RH EL is not for everone. Or are you
saying RH should release a new version every year or so but support each
and every old version for 6 years?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 15:43, Brian Wheeler bdwhe...@indiana.edu wrote:
Since we've got to revalidate all of our in-house software before we can
do the move it is not like we can just throw a switch when RHEL6 comes
out ... I actually have to plan for it. I contacted Redhat's sales via
the
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 16:50 +0100, Giulio Orsero wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 15:43, Brian Wheeler bdwhe...@indiana.edu wrote:
Since we've got to revalidate all of our in-house software before we can
do the move it is not like we can just throw a switch when RHEL6 comes
out ... I
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 04:50:40PM +0100, Giulio Orsero wrote:
RHEL6.0 is beta in jan 2010:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555198
RHEL 6.0 is not in beta yet.
--
--Jos Vos j...@xos.nl
--X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
--Amsterdam,
Once upon a time, Tom Sightler tt...@tuxyturvy.com said:
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Tru64 also supported in-place version upgrades, unlike RHEL, so if you
were running 5.0A and really needed something in 5.1B, you didn't have
to format the drive or build a new
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jack Neely jjne...@ncsu.edu said:
I must say that I'm fairly concerned about RHEL 5 being current for
much longer. Its pretty long in the tooth in general at this point.
Yeah, that
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 05:27:59PM +0100, Jos Vos wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 04:50:40PM +0100, Giulio Orsero wrote:
RHEL6.0 is beta in jan 2010:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555198
RHEL 6.0 is not in beta yet.
--
--Jos Vos j...@xos.nl
--X/OS Experts
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 09:43:07AM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com said:
There's always Fedora then---RH EL is not for everone. Or are you
saying RH should release a new version every
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 02:45:29PM -0500, Jack Neely wrote:
There are multiple internal and Red Hat partner-only spins of RHEL
before the public betas are released. There are lots of bugs to show
some good progress on RHEL 6, but not much to indicate which alpha/beta
this may be or a general
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom Sightler tt...@tuxyturvy.com said:
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Tru64 also supported in-place version upgrades, unlike RHEL, so if you
were running 5.0A and really needed
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom Sightler tt...@tuxyturvy.com said:
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Tru64 also supported in-place version upgrades, unlike RHEL, so if
you
were running 5.0A and really
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Jack Neely jjne...@ncsu.edu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 09:43:07AM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com said:
There's always Fedora then---RH EL is not for
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom Sightler tt...@tuxyturvy.com said:
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Tru64 also supported in-place version upgrades, unlike RHEL, so if you
were running 5.0A and really needed
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Eugene Vilensky evilen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom Sightler tt...@tuxyturvy.com said:
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Tru64 also supported in-place
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com said:
Yes it is. The above quote covers different things. What I think Chris
was talking about was doing a full or partial upgrade from 3.9 to say
4.9 which would not exactly be supported.
That is correct; I was talking about
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 12:35 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom Sightler tt...@tuxyturvy.com said:
I don't understand this part. You can certainly do 5.0 - 5.1 style
upgrades in-place, and you can upgrade between major versions using
boot media (either net boot, CD, whatever)
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jack Neely jjne...@ncsu.edu said:
I must say that I'm fairly concerned about RHEL 5 being current for
much longer. Its pretty long in the tooth in general at this point.
Yeah, that is a problem. A 3+ year release cycle for open source
software is just
Once upon a time, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com said:
There's always Fedora then---RH EL is not for everone. Or are you
saying RH should release a new version every year or so but support each
and every old version for 6 years?
No, I don't expect a release every 12 months. The problem is
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Collins, Kevin [BEELINE] kcoll...@chevron.com said:
To look at the other side of the coin, take into account that this is
RHEL: the E stands for Enterprise, and part of what you are paying
for is a stable,
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 08:57:19AM -0600, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
RHEL5 has been a solid work horse for more than two and a half years,
but its 2.6.18 kernel is getting a bit long on tooth. The most recent
official mention of RHEL6 I've seen was Tim Burke's presentation at
the September
We're still using RHEL4...so RHEL5 is still new for us :-)
Paul Krizak 7171 Southwest Pkwy MS B200.3A
Senior Systems Engineer Austin, TX 78735
Advanced Micro Devices Desk: (512) 602-8775
Linux/Unix Systems Engineering Cell: (512) 791-0686
...@redhat.com [mailto:rhelv5-list-boun...@redhat.com] On
Behalf Of Jack Neely
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:31 PM
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list
Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] Whither RHEL6?
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 08:57:19AM -0600, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote
: Re: [rhelv5-list] Whither RHEL6?
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 08:57:19AM -0600, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
RHEL5 has been a solid work horse for more than two and a half years,
but its 2.6.18 kernel is getting a bit long on tooth. The most recent
official mention of RHEL6 I've seen was Tim
Once upon a time, Jack Neely jjne...@ncsu.edu said:
I must say that I'm fairly concerned about RHEL 5 being current for
much longer. Its pretty long in the tooth in general at this point.
Yeah, that is a problem. A 3+ year release cycle for open source
software is just not cutting it.
I'd
-Original Message-
From: rhelv5-list-boun...@redhat.com
[mailto:rhelv5-list-boun...@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Chris Adams
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:46 PM
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list
Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] Whither RHEL6?
Once upon a time, Jack
Once upon a time, Collins, Kevin [BEELINE] kcoll...@chevron.com said:
To look at the other side of the coin, take into account that this is
RHEL: the E stands for Enterprise, and part of what you are paying
for is a stable, long-term support cycle. Look at other Enterprise
operating systems
RHEL5 has been a solid work horse for more than two and a half years,
but its 2.6.18 kernel is getting a bit long on tooth. The most recent
official mention of RHEL6 I've seen was Tim Burke's presentation at
the September 2009 Red Hat Summit (see
33 matches
Mail list logo
