Re: RHEL4
- From: General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Apr 2007 14:03:32 GMT
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:41:50 +0100, Simon Dean wrote:
Damn it. damn it and everything it stands for. I understand that it
doesn't use "bleeding edge" technology because it's still fresh, but I
mean, the printing interface, aka, CUPS, is like a few years old at
least.
Cya
Simon
RHEL starts life slightly obsolete and then stays frozen in time for
ever,for example RHEL 5 which came out a few weeks ago is using the
2.6.18 kernel, FC6 is using the 2.6.20 kernel. The only updates to RHEL
are bug and security patches, a particular release never gets better. If
you want an up to date distro use Fedora Core or Ubuntu. RHEL 5 is
probably usable because it's close to FC5/FC6, I can't say for sure until
the CentOS of SL versions come out and I try it myself. RHEL 4 is
basically FC2/FC3 which was nice in it's day but seems awfully crude and
bug ridden by the standards of FC6. Also you'll have a lot more hardware
compatibility issues with RHEL because of it's use of obsolete kernels.
The Ethernet controllers and PATA controllers on the Core2 motherboards
need 2.6.19 kernels or better, RHEL 5 uses 2.6.18. When I put SL 4.4 onto
my several year old A64 notebook I had to compile a modern kernel myself
in order to make the notebook work because the 2.6.9 kernel in RHEL 4.4
lacked working drivers for the Nforce 3-150 chipset in the notebook. I
mostly use FC6, I keep a RHEL clone on some older hardware so that I can
use some commercial software that doesn't work completely on FC6.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RHEL4
- From: Dan Espen
- Re: RHEL4
- References:
- RHEL4
- From: Simon Dean
- RHEL4
- Prev by Date: Re: Linux, XP, Win2003 Server multi-boot
- Next by Date: Re: RHEL4
- Previous by thread: Re: RHEL4
- Next by thread: Re: RHEL4
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
