> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com] > > > This has already been mentioned in this thread. I can't speak for > > anyone else, but I personally support engineers and engineering tools. > > The engineering tools are only supported on the latest 2 versions of > > RHEL/centos. Of which, the latest one is perpetually unstable. > > I guess that's a matter of opinion, but seriously, Red Hat Enterprise, > unstable??? I don't think so. Maybe you've confused it with fedora. I do > recall a few problems with 4.x early on though - and I replaced them all with > 5.x as quickly as possible.
Have we had enough discussion of RHEL4 yet? The whole point of the discussion was: There is no svn 1.5 or 1.6 available for RHEL4, from any of the "standard" repositories. I choose to build from source, and posted how I do it, to show that it's easy. Do we really need to continually rehash the discussion of why anyone would ever use RHEL4??? This is definitely off topic, but it's not RHEL4 or RHEL5 that's unstable. It's the engineering tools, if you run them on whichever is the latest version of RHEL. Because the developers who produce the tools don't have access to the latest OS until the same time when you do. That means when it's released, they start debugging things at the rate customers complain about them. And since most of the customers are like me - conservative and resistant to changing the engineering development environment - it means the debug time for the application on the new OS is a long time. For these engineering tools, I choose to run the fully patched oldest supported OS, and only upgrade when support is ending for it. Hence, I am currently upgrading from RHEL4 to RHEL5, because RHEL6 was just released. Can we let this topic die now?
