On 2/24/11 7:37 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 05:43 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Johnny Hughes<joh...@centos.org
>> <mailto:joh...@centos.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not saying this to be a smart a$$ or be negative ... just saying
>>> that other enterprise distributions exist that provide long term
>>> stability without backports ... Unbuntu LTS is a free example. They
>>> also provide integration of all their system libraries and audit their
>>> software for security compliance.
>>
>> I think the primary driving factor for Redhat to employ the backport
>> method is to maintain a stable ABI across a release, and the primary
>> reason for that is for third party application support.
>>
>> Redhat wants to provide a platform for which commercial vendors can
>> develop their wares such that they can say it supports RHEL 5 or 6 and
>> it will actually run on said platform without loss of functionality or
>> stability.
>>
>> I doubt the same can be said about Ubuntu LTS or even SLES where a
>> change in a library can result in either the third party application not
>> working or working with limited functionality.
>
> That is absolutely true and I agree with you 100% ... I like the
> constant ABI across the release and the backport model, otherwise I
> would be building "something else".
Can someone remind me why VMware server 2.x broke with a RHEL/CentOS 5.x glibc
update? I switched back to 1.x which I like better anyway, but if the reason
for putting up with oldness is to keep that from happening, it didn't work.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
