On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Michael Torrie <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
If you have an app that needs a newer version of PHP or Mysql, etc, could you run it in a VM? That way you could run whatever you want and preserve the base system until its time for an upgrade to rhel 6 for all hosts. _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
