Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red Hat Releases RHEL 6

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the new-kid-on-the-block dept.

Red Hat Software 228

alphadogg writes "Red Hat on Wednesday released version 6 of its Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) distribution. 'RHEL 6 is the culmination of 10 years of learning and partnering,' said Paul Cormier, Red Hat's president of products and technologies, in a webcast announcing the launch. Cormier positioned the OS both as a foundation for cloud deployments and a potential replacement for Windows Server. 'We want to drive Linux deeper into every single IT organization. It is a great product to erode the Microsoft Server ecosystem,' he said. Overall, RHEL 6 has more than 2,000 packages, and an 85 percent increase in the amount of code from the previous version, said Jim Totton, vice president of Red Hat's platform business unit. The company has added 1,800 features to the OS and resolved more than 14,000 bug issues."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

2000 packages? 85% more code? (3, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34191842)

RH6: software you can weigh...

Re:2000 packages? 85% more code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34191866)

85% more lines of code from the last release

Re:2000 packages? 85% more code? (2, Funny)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34191962)

I hope those 14000 bugs were found in the new code, or we're looking at about 16470 more to go.

Only 2000 packages (2, Interesting)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 3 years ago | (#34191976)

I tried CentOS about a year ago, and the big problem I ran into was that the OS had so few packages. I am a Debian user and I really like having over 20,000 packages in the official repositories. I rarely have to go somewhere else to download software.

Re:Only 2000 packages (1)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192030)

its not a general distro, which is what debian is. its based on RHEL and the main packages that go with that OS. there are community maintained repos that offer a larger variety of software packages to use with your centos install. personally ive used debian more, and prefer it just because im more familiar with it.

Re:Only 2000 packages (4, Informative)

kwalker (1383) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192150)

If you install EPEL [fedoraproject.org] you'll get an additional 4600+ packages.

However RHEL/CentOS are server operating systems, so a lot of packages that make sense on desktops are omitted.

More than you need (2, Informative)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192298)

CentOS is a server platform. You run databases and web servers on it. Don't put it on your desktop, that's not what it's for. The lack of desktop support is intentional, it allows them to focus on server performance and quality. My CentOS machines have less than 800 packages installed and they still feel bloated

Maybe you can run it on a desktop if you load it up with EPEL and rpmfusion, but at that point you are probably better off with something else.

Re:More than you need (2, Interesting)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192490)

This is kind of overstated. RHEL works fine as an enterprise desktop; it's used that way internally at RH and by some RH customers. It's probably not what you want on your home desktop, but it's going too far to say RHEL is for servers only.

Re:More than you need (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192534)

I hope they never send out any videos. The version of vlc with Centos 5, is buggy as hell and lacks support for a great many things.

Re:More than you need (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192802)

CentOS is a server platform.

No... actually CentOS is both it basically provides the built-from-source packages equivalent ot BOTH Redhat Enterprise Linux Workstation edition and Advanced Platform.

All the workstation packages and all the server packages

Yes, RHEL Server is definitely for servers.

But Redhat makes a version for Workstations too (it has a different manifest with a different list of packages you are allowed to install on your system from the CDs, and a different list of packages that are restricted or unavailable due to you installing or not installing a certain edition), and CentOS includes rebuilds of all those packages.

Re:2000 packages? 85% more code? (3, Informative)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192072)

Debian has "over 25000 [debian.org] ". If RHEL6 is "software you can weigh", then Debian must be "software designed to break your scale". :)

(Note: this is not a claim that "Debian is better" or any such nonsense. Merely pointing out that 2000 packages is hardly an impressive or unprecedented feat in itself.)

Re:2000 packages? 85% more code? (0, Troll)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192382)

"If RHEL6 is "software you can weigh", then Debian must be "software designed to break your scale". :)"
then what is OpenSUSE ??? - a black hole .11.3 is so bloated that your neighbors kitchen sink is tossed in for good measure

Re:2000 packages? 85% more code? (3, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192320)

Nonono, 2000 is the year the packages were released. This is really RH6 :)

Re:2000 packages? 85% more code? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192648)

Nice! Sorry no mod points. Please accept this reply as a substitute, redeemable for free lunch at the lunch on wed, 9.5/32/1973.

Re:2000 packages? 85% more code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192430)

added 1800 features

some of which can be found on the product overview page [redhat.com] .

First Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34191844)

From Debian.

10 years for one version? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34191860)

Chrome will be up to version 783 (beta) in 10 years!

directory Server ? (1)

johnjones (14274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34191874)

Does this include the directory server that mac's and windows machines can work with ?

Re:directory Server ? (1)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192016)

You'll have to wait for Samba4 to get something fully featured which will rock your boat if you need a directory server, and it's still in alpha status. You can do some things with Samba 3.x, you may even (ab)use it as a replacement -- and RHEL includes it -- but it takes some time to setup and it lacks some important features that you may want.

Re:directory Server ? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192096)

As Sibling states you need Samba 4 (Hopefully) to act as a directory server to Microsoft clients. Macs work fine with OpenLDAP though. I've Authed Mac clients against Red Hat and SuSE servers, and this was several years ago.

Re:directory Server ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192210)

In my not so humble opinion 389 is by far the best LDAP server. http://directory.fedoraproject.org/ [fedoraproject.org]

389 is based on the old Netscape directory server (AKA NDS/IPlanet) code.

CentOS (2, Interesting)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#34191946)

Anyone know when we can expect CentOS 6?

CentOS in about 6 weeks (2, Informative)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 3 years ago | (#34191984)

CentOS usually releases 1 or 2 months after the RHEL release.

Re:CentOS in about 6 weeks (1)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192450)

Actually, according to the CentOS article on wikipedia, its usually 4 weeks, even after major releases. Sometimes longer, but usually its like 2 or 3 days less than a month.

Re:CentOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192254)

Some time between between the release of OpenBSD v4.8 and 4.9

Re:CentOS (4, Informative)

rayvd (155635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192358)

Usually takes 6 weeks or so. You can follow the CentOS twitter feed here [twitter.com] to keep up.

In addition, sounds like [centos.org] there may be new ways shortly for tracking CentOS development.

Took them long enough. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34191948)

Does anyone use this anymore?

Re:Took them long enough. (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34191994)

If you mean Red Hat Enterprise Linux, yes. I know that my last companies used them for their Linux machines. Red Hat has many customers [redhat.com] some of them big names like Qualcomm and NTT Telecom.

Way to bite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192034)

Yep. Feed the trolls.

erode Windows server how? (5, Informative)

cschepers (1581457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34191970)

At my workplace, Red Hat server licensing is pricier than Windows Server licensing. I'd love to move servers off Windows, but it'll be hard to justify if it costs more.

Re:erode Windows server how? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34191988)

That's amazing. It's also how Microsoft kicked ATT out of the marketplace in the early 1990's. ATT wanted $75 per OEM PC license; Microsoft wanted $10. The rest is history.

Re:erode Windows server how? (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192004)

Just use CentOS or Fedora, and pay nothing for the OS. Of course, you'll then have to pay for support if you need it.

Re:erode Windows server how? (4, Informative)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192060)

Fedora is a really bad choice for enterprise environments. Fedora provides updates for 13 months. RHEL has a 7 year lifecycle. Enough said.

Re:erode Windows server how? (0, Troll)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192520)

And of course RHEL's support lifecycle looks pathetic next to Windows/AIX/HPUX (10 years) and Solaris (12 years).

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192080)

Fedora bills itself as "bleeding edge" as I recall. Anyhow, it's definitely not aiming at enterprise quality, it's trying to push the desktop feature base forward.

Re:erode Windows server how? (0)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192578)

I almost equate Fedora to Ubuntu. Both like the latest and greatest, while getting bashed for doing that. Not that i have used fedora in a server environment. Sometimes use Ubuntu LTS versions for servers though.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1, Troll)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192218)

If the parent wants a server, he could do worse than install Slackware. For many years I used this as my desktop distro (now I use Arch [archlinux.org] ), but for servers Slack kicks ass. It is so simple to set up and maintain, you don't need to pay for support unless you are lazy or clueless.

Re:erode Windows server how? (2, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192244)

Redhats "support" is pretty bad if you don't get the super-ultra-deluxe package or whatever it is called. It's India based email support and often times they don't really understand the question, they just seize upon a couple of keywords and respond back with various kb articles on those keywords. Worthless IMO.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192386)

Thats actually not true. Red Hat has multiple support centers including US based, who respondes is largely dependent upon which tech is monitoring the queue, no different than any other helpdesk. I've also had much better luck with them than either Oracle or MS, though I readily admit I'm usually calling about non-technical issues.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192414)

Comparing RedHat support to MS or Oracle is really setting the bar quite low. Both of those seem to use nothing but third worlders with no education beyond the knowledge base on their websites, at least until you get several tech levels deep.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192536)

What support level do you have? We have the most basic possible and that is what we get. Though I admit we haven't tried phone support, I never have any luck with that and I always want to be able to refer back to something if we see the same problem again.

Re:erode Windows server how? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192018)

hmmm funny CentOS6.0 will be Open Source free.

RHEL comes with free CALs (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192020)

Red Hat server licensing is pricier than Windows Server licensing.

At first, I guessed that it might have something to do with the common conception that one can run more things on a single Red Hat server than on a single Windows server. But a couple Google searches later, I found this Microsoft white paper [google.com] claiming that Red Hat doesn't charge for client access licenses for RHEL.

Re:RHEL comes with free CALs (4, Interesting)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192452)

Or you can just install CentOS which is Red Hat minus the artwork and the word "Red Hat" like most of us. I find Linux generally stable/reliable enough that I don't need support (I can't even remember my last Linux server crash, it's been years and stuff "just works").

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192142)

If you care about that just use centos.

Re:erode Windows server how? (4, Informative)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192154)

On a per server basis, maybe, but once you pay for a year of Red Hat support you're done. No per seat licenses. It's like $200 (more now? I don't know.. I don't actually handle the money part) to "license" a server for a year (really for a year's worth of support). That's it. Got 2 users? $200. Got 2000 users? $200. The support is good too. Got a problem? Open a ticket. They'll pretty much solve it for you, no per incident charges.

Re:erode Windows server how? (3, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192270)

I've always thought that one should pay for support on a per-incident basis for software that one considers reliable. Count your incidents per year for the last few years and do the math.

Re:erode Windows server how? (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192336)

Redhat would never make a dime.
Truth is lots of places use Centos as it is now.

RHEL should offer site licenses or something like that. No need to be cheaper just even more easy to deal with. The lack of CALs and different levels of the OS already makes them easier to deal with than windows licensing.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192666)

***The lack of CALs and different levels of the OS already makes them easier to deal with than windows licensing.***

Whats next? Oracle licenses?

Re:erode Windows server how? (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192762)

Touche, but windows licensing really does get people into trouble. I have seen many small shops who had no CALs and in some cases no Sharepoint CALs. They were upset when they found out you had to buy the software and then the right to use it separately. I really think Microsoft does this on purpose, since violations can turn into real money very quickly.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

sxeraverx (962068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192660)

I've always thought I should pay a reasonable fixed rate for support, and that whoever calls the software reliable should pay me on a per-incident basis whenever it breaks. If I make out in the long run, that's just incentive to make it more reliable.

Re:erode Windows server how? (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192192)

Windows Server Licenses do not include support. There is your price difference.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192480)

someone mod this guy up. also redhat support is far superior compared to the other commercial linux vendors.

Re:erode Windows server how? (4, Informative)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192532)

And, as a poster above mentioned, there aren't client limitations like with windows server.

Re:erode Windows server how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192654)

Yes they do. From the OEM.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192772)

No, that's the OEM supporting it, not Microsoft.
Your getting the support from buying the hardware basically, since OEM comes with the hardware.

Re:erode Windows server how? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192798)

Try using it. It will get you no where.

Could have included more updated packages... (1)

IYagami (136831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192026)

According to ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/os/SRPMS/ [redhat.com] , the included version of PostgreSQL is 8.4.4. I know that PostgreSQL was released about a month ago and that this is an enterprise release subjet to more tests... but this new version has important features (Hot standby, Streaming replication) for a production environment.

Does anybody know if RH will update the PostgreSQL version as a manteinance package?

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (2, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192136)

RedHat eventually added PostgreSQL 8.4 as an option for RHEL5, so it wouldn't be surprising to find that eventually they decide to make 9.0 (or 9.1) available for RHEL6. This really isn't as big of an issue as people think though. One of the PostgreSQL core team members is employed by RedHat, and the updated PostgreSQL packages available from their yum repo are extremely close to the RHEL builds. The same group of people is involved in the packaging and version updates, and the PostgreSQL yum repo is kept as current with security fixes as the RHEL releases of that same version are.

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192148)

It will not. Just add the official postgres repo.

9.0 is really nice, and 9.1 promises to be even better.

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (1)

PineHall (206441) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192184)

Red Hat is very conservative with its packages. Minor updates come roughly every 6 months and it is then that they update packages if they decide to do so. However third party repositories will have newer versions of programs/packages and other programs that are not included in RHEL 6 by Red Hat. Naturally those packages will not be supported by Red Hat.

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (2, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192304)

Often times they will not even update featuresets for certain packages at all, they will just backport any security fixes that come out. This is both good and bad, good because you don't have to worry about updates breaking anything, bad because you may not be able to use the latest and greatest software packages out there. Whether you should be using bleeding edge at all for "enterprise" is another debate altogether.

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (1)

kwalker (1383) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192208)

Not that much (to version 9). RHEL doesn't do major version bumps for components before the whole OS bumps. However you will probably be able to find a community-maintained repo with PG9 packages for RHEL6 shortly (There may be one for RHEL5 now), google is your friend.

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192214)

We run our product off PostgreSQL and we were still deploying on 8.3 until 6 months ago. We'll probably be deploying 8.4.x until 2012. I know I want PostgreSQL 9 out for at least a year before moving anything critical over to it.

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192236)

You do know you can start testing it now right?
Heck, you should probably have been testing the betas.

The new streaming replication is so easy a caveman could do it.

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192380)

"You do know you can start testing it now right?"

Of course he can. He can do a lot of things.

The question is not about what he can do, but what *should* he do.

Re:Could have included more updated packages... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192426)

He should have been testing the betas, so he could certify this for his environment ASAP.

RH6: More Code is Better Code (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192032)

Now there's something they could trademark!

About time (2, Interesting)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192144)

It's about time they released RHEL 6, RHEL 5 has become outrageously crusty in the almost 4 years that it's been out now. Nevermind that it's a mediocre distro with virtually nothing packaged in the base repository, $dayjob forces a lot of people to use RHEL, and it'll be nice to have something that isn't quite so crusty.

Anyone know why RHEL 6 took so long? Previous major releases were 2 years or less apart from eachother, 4 years is a really long time...

Re:About time (1)

adosch (1397357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192212)

Hard to say. I've wondered the same thing myself. But when pushes comes to shove, I don't really have a problem with an enterprise OS taking their time on a release just as long as it's been through a bit more of regression testing to cut some of the bigger bugfixes out of the way. RHEL5 right now is really a stable foundation OS for the most part, even when using more of the COTS packages right out of the distro (e.g. LAMP setups, PostgreSQL, vsftp, ect.).

So I guess it's now time for RHEL to live up to their hype FTFA and hope that the 4 year wait measures up to the gloat about the 10's of thousands of fixes they poured into the release.

w00:7 fp... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192216)

the resources that other members in from one folder on are a pathetic bad for *BSD. As for the record, I Do and doing what Slashdot 'BSD is The numbers. The BitTorrent) Second, FrreBSD went out WEBSITE THIRD, YOU the future holds questions, then my resignation under the GPL. These early troubles of Walnut brilliant plan How is the GNAA vitality. Its bunch of retarded And Michael Smith Of OpenBSD. How Hot on the hhels of and promotes our conducted at MIT sadness And it was And enjoy all the quarreled on recent article put

Still the gold standard of long-supported releases (4, Interesting)

proxima (165692) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192268)

RHEL provides a 7 year lifecycle [redhat.com] , which is unmatched by the other major distributions I know about (even Debian). This is crucial for the enterprise; I know of a number of systems which are still running RHEL3 after 6-7 years. Upgrading production computers is not a trivial process, and 2-3 year lifecycles just don't cut it in some situations.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192286)

You trust the server hardware after 6 years?

Rotating out hardware is essential, virtualization makes this far less of a chore.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (1)

proxima (165692) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192352)

You trust the server hardware after 6 years?

Rotating out hardware is essential, virtualization makes this far less of a chore.

It's certainly not always the administrator's choice about whether hardware gets replaced. Besides, there's a long history of UNIX hardware being around forever (well over a decade, sometimes two).

On a personal note, I just retired my 12 year old P166 desktop which was functioning as a router/firewall. It had been running the same install of Debian, suitably upgraded, for 8 years. The only components I had to replace in those dozen years were the CPU and PS fans.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192374)

I have machines like that at home. I still use an old ultrasparc 5, but in production at work things are a little different.

Also, RHEL != UNIX
My ultrasparc running solaris 10 is UNIX. For the record, I prefer GNU/linux or what ever you want to call it. So much so that any solaris machine I touch gets the GNU tools installed.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192384)

Dammit, Sun Ultra 5 is the name of that thing. The CPU is an ultrasparc.

I even have it maxed out with 512MB of RAM, had to harvest 4 machines they were tossing out to do that.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (2, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192586)

5 years is generally the limit I will push, since I can buy 5 year support contracts (and did with our most recent SAN purchase since year 4 and 5 can be outrageously expensive if bought after the fact) I feel I'm well enough protected. Also as you pointed out virtualization means that an OS install isn't tied to any particular box so it can live on well after the host has been retired. Since it generally takes 6-18 months to really get comfortable with a new OS, then 6-18 months to bring any new large scale project to production on it you're already up to 3 years into an OS's lifecycle before you have anything critical on it and add 5 years for hardware lifecycle and you are at 8 years, a year longer than RHEL's support lifecycle which is why the other major vendors offer 10 or 12 year support lifecycles.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192630)

You trust the server hardware after 6 years?

What does that have to do with the OS install? You just use dd to copy the file system to the new drive and your new hardware is up and running with no need to worry about getting the software config right.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192742)

In reality a 5 year old kernel may well not support the new hardware.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192710)

It's not like MS Windows in that the machine owns the licence and not you, plus if you put the old hard disk into something with vaguely similar hardware it will run. The server might still be called psiduck but it may not have an original part from six years ago in it.
Plus I do have some six year old servers - they just are not doing anything important these days and have had the original disks swapped out. I've got a sixteen year old machine for specific jobs but it's only been on for a few hours this year. A newer one can do the same job (format 42" plots) but it does better text formatting.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (2, Insightful)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192784)

Code doesn't always run on the same box.
If you have something in prod on a certified OS with a certified install environment, if the hardware dies you re-install the certified OS ecosystem on the new hardware.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192598)

"Upgrading production computers is not a trivial"

Correction: it is not trivial for unmaintained, closed source software. Upgrading maintained, open source software is a breeze, as any Debian user can attest.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (1)

proxima (165692) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192662)

Correction: it is not trivial for unmaintained, closed source software. Upgrading maintained, open source software is a breeze, as any Debian user can attest.

Having had a single Debian install for 8 years, I can attest that it works remarkably well, but it is not always a breeze. And over the course of 5+ years, there are major revisions to software like Apache which require new configuration. The backported security fixes in RHEL allow users to keep a very consistent system for a very long time.

Hardly! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192704)

HP is still supporting VMS on VAX and Alpha systems. Yes indeed there are VAX clusters out there, still working great after all these years.

They also still maintain and update Tru64 on Alpha systems.

Now THERE is long-term support for you.

Re:Still the gold standard of long-supported relea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192740)

Now they provide 10-year lifecycle instead of 7. Though the last 3 years (year 8-10) is much more expensive. I've received quotes on that from resellers and decided to upgrade our EL3 installations anyways.

85% increase in code? (3, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192276)

I distinctly remember when a lack of bloat was one of Linux's bragging points. What happened to Red Hat? Time was they were also once cheaper than the windows servers they lampooned.

Re:85% increase in code? (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192290)

1. You don't have to install all that crap.
2. RHEL includes support, so they still are cheaper.

A bunch of people just lots their bets... (1)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192340)

... that Duke Nukem Forever would ship before RHEL 6! ;-)

But seriously, congratulations are due to all the Fedora and RedHat folks who made this happen. This opens the door to a modern package set for many, many organizations.

Oracle? (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192420)

How long before there is a new Oracle Linux based on RHEL6?

Laugh all you want, but their kernel is much more stable and solid than RHEL, and has better network performance too.

Re:Oracle? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192470)

Define more stable.
Are you having uptime problems with RHEL?

You can build a more modern kernel and run that with RHEL too if you wanted.

Awesome, now you, too.... (-1, Troll)

AugstWest (79042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192442)

...can use a package database that is 3 years behind everything else, starting today.

Nothing worse than having a production system that you can't update without ripping everything out and compiling from scratch, which, really, you should've just done in the first place.

RedHat: Providing The Pain So You Can Learn Your Lessons

Unless, of course, you're unlucky enough to work for a company that licences RHEL, in which case the pain will just keep on coming for decades.

Re:Awesome, now you, too.... (1)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192668)

I always wondered about that. What do you do in the enterprise? I would imagine the point of support is help relating to say installation and maintenance on included Sendmail, PostgreSQL, etc. But if you rip it out and install a new one from scratch, which is necessary because the packages are really really old, they can't or won't support it. What do admins do?

There has to be an answer, otherwise why would anyone in the entire industry use Linux?

Re:Awesome, now you, too.... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192752)

You run new stuff if you need it without support, or old stuff if you have to have the support.

In reality Postgres has their own repo and you can buy support from them if you wanted.

Re:Awesome, now you, too.... (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192794)

If you run commercially sourced software on linux and find a bug and try to get a fix the Indian guy on the phone (who cannot from his script without losing his job) will blame the OS for any problem unless you run on RHEL or whatever else is on the list. That's why I run it , and although I run other stuff as well I can honestly tell vendors that their software is fucked up on any platform because I've tested it on the one they recommend.
Most of the time I don't need anything new on the servers anyway.
Actually some of the commercial linux software is badly broken or effectively abandonware (flexlm from Macrovision is the most evil and pointless waste of time designed to punish the innocent) and will only work easily on something like RHEL that includes a pile of legacy libraries. It's a lot of mucking about to get another distro to do the same thing versus a fifteen minute or so install from local ftp.

About time (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192460)

Finally. I've been running RHEL6 Beta on my new work laptop and was about to give up hope on this and literally was going to install Fedora 14 in the next few hours.

I will be installing Fedora 14 for my personal laptops (two down last weekend, two to go. We're a family of 4 kids, 2 adults).

But, instead I will be installed RHEL6 tonight for my work laptop and Friday for my work desktop (currently on Fedora 12, which is pretty much on par for the versioning as RHEL6). We've got spare EL licenses for server not yet deployed, so I'll use those until CentOS 6 ships. Once it does, I'll side-grade and free up the EL licenses.

Interesting, I've never heard of RHEL referred to as "RELL" as they do in this promo video: RHEL6 promo video [redhat.com]

Official RHEL blog post (4, Informative)

trawg (308495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192488)

No official link given in the OP, but here's the Red Hat blog post [redhat.com] , titled "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6: A Technical Look at Red Hat’s Defining New Operating Platform", which gives a good look at some of the changes.

The less-interesting press releases are here [redhat.com] (Red Hat Enables Expanded Deployment Flexibility and Application Portability with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6) and here [redhat.com] (Red Hat Sets a New Standard for the Next Generation of Operating Systems).

Must deploy CentOS 5 now, can't wait for 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34192726)

This project I'm working on has the worst timing. The need this server (CentOS 5) up and running by the end of next week. I'd love to wait for CentOS 6, but it looks like that won't be possible. On a positive note, I suppose I get to test a 5 to 6 upgrade.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?