RE: RH 10
From: Mark Reis (mcr2z_at_cs.virginia.edu)
Date: 07/25/03
- Previous message: Mark Reis: "RE: Mail Strangeness in RH9"
- In reply to: Ed Wilts: "Re: RH 10"
- Next in thread: Ed Wilts: "Re: RH 10"
- Reply: Ed Wilts: "Re: RH 10"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: <redhat-list@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:57:45 -0400
I'd just like to add my two cents....
In our case at a public university without a network filter or firewall
(politics - not by choice), keeping on top of the security patches are a
must. Redhat 6.x and earlier 7.x machines are hacked within days of coming
up on the network. So if you plan on having your machine exposed on the net,
not upgrading/patching it isn't really a good plan.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-admin@redhat.com] On
Behalf Of Ed Wilts
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 4:38 PM
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: RH 10
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:59:30PM -0400, mark wrote:
> On Friday 25 July 2003 10:45 am,
> > From: Ed Wilts <ewilts@ewilts.org>
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:22:28PM -0400, mark wrote:
> >
> Make that 4-5 for hardware.
> >
> > I picked up a Athlon XP 2000+ earlier this year for under $400, and
> > they're even cheaper now.
>
> This is part of what I originally wrote, and 80% of the responses seem
> to ignore what I said, and responded, as you just did, above, to what
> you wanted to hear me saying.
>
> first, you think I should get an Athlon XP 2000+,
No. I said that if WANT the leading edge features, then you may NEED to
upgrade. If you can live with the original set of features, then you don't
need to upgrade. I've still got a 6.1 system handling production e-mail in
my office. The latest version I have running at work is 7.3.
My production e-mail/dns/web server at home is 7.1. These systems don't
NEED to be upgraded. I want to, but I don't need to.
> Next, I put RH 9 on, and once I got IceWM running, it runs quite
> well, thankyouverymuch. I, in fact, am not asking for "more features",
> as someone here assumed.
If you don't need the new features, don't put on RHL 9. Install 7.3.
It's supported, it's secure, and it probably does what you need. Or trade
some of the services for different ones, like IceWM as you found out.
>I just want to be able, as I have in the past years, to upgrade to
>newer versions that have all the bugfixes and security fixes.
Want, not need. I want a new car to get the security fixes too (side impact
air bags, etc.), but I can live with an older one.
> My complaint was what has been happening with KDE and Gnome, which
> just to *run* anymore are beginning to look as though they're chasing
> M$ for bloatware.
If you have issues with the KDE or Gnome footprints, then you're complaining
to the wrong people. Complain to the developers, not the distributors. Red
Hat essentially has 2 choices: leave out KDE and Gnome because they don't
like the footprint, or ship it and give you an estimate as to what it takes
to run them. They don't have the resources to do all the development
necessary to trim the footprint, if it's even possible, so that you can
continue to download it for free.
> There, *now* have I made my complaint clear?
Yes, you want the latest features on old hardware. You seem to be unable to
differentiate between want and need. You have unrealistic expectations as
to what Red Hat can do. This statement was blunt, but you seemed to not be
able to grasp what I was saying the first time.
Red Hat is not Microsoft. They don't pretend to be Microsoft. They don't
develop the vast majority of the software that you are running.
The source is open and can not be closed.
If your system is light on capabilities, you've got several choices.
It's up to you as to which of those choices are appropriate to you:
1. Upgrade the hardware (this is right for some, perhaps not for you).
2. Run older software. Install security updates the old fashioned way.
3. Force the new software onto old hardware and take the performance hit 4.
Configure the new software to reduce the footprint (e.g. replace window
managers, remove unneeded services, etc.)
Every one of us has tradeoffs to make. I don't run a GUI on my 128MB
webserver since I don't have the memory. It runs an older release of Red
Hat Linux (7.1). My new XP 2000+ will eventually replace this system, but
it's going to take some effort for me to do it - data migration, testing,
etc. I'm going to trade off the effort to do the migration to get the
benefit of faster hardware on a newer release of the OS.
-- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- Previous message: Mark Reis: "RE: Mail Strangeness in RH9"
- In reply to: Ed Wilts: "Re: RH 10"
- Next in thread: Ed Wilts: "Re: RH 10"
- Reply: Ed Wilts: "Re: RH 10"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
