Hugh Messenger wrote:
Which is the ironic part, as the only thing I'm paying Redhat for is the packaging and upgrading of compatible open source components. Essentially, the expectation that when I type 'up2date' it doesn't mean "up2dateasof1999".
It's a known problem with more than just Redhat.
I think what chaps my ass is that they are punting the resulting legacy support headaches straight into open source developers lap.
I wouldn't have put it that way, but yes. That's essentially what they're doing. There's a steady trickle of redhat customers on this list who have problems with versions that are *years* out of date.
I've been taking a hard look at Debian of late. It's that or Centos. A case of Better vs More Convenient.
I looked at Debian 5 years ago, and didn't like it at all. There are still things about it I don't like (config files in /usr/share? Huh?) But... the mass of developers keeping packages current and up to date is something that can't be argued with. Alan DeKok.