Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Jack Neely <[email protected]> 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.
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? That'd be a huge drain on RH's resources for very little benefit. I guess another supposed competitor of RH's does do long-term releases every year. Anyway, in the enterprise, RHEL is just about right. A 3 year release cycle is just about perfect in most data centers and corporate installations. We upgrade the OS at the same time as a hardware cycle, usually. Our hardware cycles are 3-5 years. RHEL works out great for us. We abandoned OS X Server a lot time ago because Apple has no concept of "enterprise support." Once their new server OS came out, they would drop support for the old one, which happened every couple years and was unacceptable. _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
