[NTLUG:Discuss] any feed back on RH 8.0 yet

[MadHat]

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 16:56, m m wrote:
> >From: MadHat <madhat at unspecific.com>
> >
> >I like it, but there are some issues.  It depends on your purpose.
> 
> How it depends? can you take examples as for workstation and servers?
> 

As mentioned in other emails, if you are running a Server I wouldn't
bother upgrading to 8 from a 7.2 or 7.3, just keep the patches up to
date.  For a Desktop, I like 8.0 better than 7.[23], but did have a few
issues on install.  Didn't take too long to fix and once taken care of
have not had many issues.

> >
> >Why do you want to upgrade?  What is the reason or result you are
> >looking for?
> 
> Won't upgrade them will get better security, better performance?
> isn't this a good reason to upgrade?
> otherwise RH want to release 8.0? commercial/marketing purpose?
> 

as mentioned by Chris and other the GUI is upgraded/changed.  There is a
lot more tools for system administration.  Everything is cleaner and
more organized, but it does lose some apps.  It also defaults to Open
Office now, which is great if you have to deal with a lot of M$Office
docs.  I use KDE, and it is setup nicely, but some apps do disappear
when upgrading, though I can't remember what now.

I will not buy RH again and will not pay for support, since every time I
ask for support they just come back with "we don't support that, please
check web site X for the list of hardware/software we support".

> long time ago, I read a linux paper (or book, I forget), it says try to stay 
> at the same system, you don't need updrade the whole box, if you need to 
> updrage, just upgrade the package you need.

Depends on what you are trying to do.  This is partially true, but not
always easy.  For desktops it is a pain in the ass to upgrade from say
KDE2 to KDE3 since there are so many dependencies.  When KDE was pre
version1, there were no packages and you had to build everything.. it
took me on average of 3 days to upgrade the desktop from version to
version.  Now I won't even bother.  I keep things patched via RPM and
use the rhn command line tool (don't have to be subscribed to use it --
rhn-applet-tui) to check for updates via cron.  

For servers its easier, because there are less dependencies for more
server daemons.  I never use the RPM apache, PHP, SSL, POP, and stuff
anyway.  I like to build those from scratch.  

My servers are running RH7.3 right now and I will not upgrade any time
soon.

> I like this idea, but I get problem here, for example, apache server, I am 
> running apache on 1.3.19, for the security purpose, I need upgrade it, 
> should I go 1.3.27 or 2.0.xx? if I go 2.0.xx, it seems that I totally get 
> rid of old apache because apache 2.0 is developed from scratch.

If you want to keep it simple, just do the 1.3.27
I have 2 running in a few places, but I am not comfortable with it yet.

> 
> if I have about 80%-90% of package (similar to apache) need to upgrade 
> (maybe include kernel), why not just upgrade the whole system to upper 
> version?
> 
> any comments?
> 

Well, thats difficult to say really.  I personally would just upgrade
the daemons if possible, and running something with the 2.4 kernel.  If
it includes all the Desktop stuff, regardless of the distribution,
upgrading to the newer version of the distribution may be easier.

-- 
MadHat at Unspecific.com
`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here...'
   -- Lewis Carroll - _Alice's_Adventures_in_Wonderland_