Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810
- From: ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Moe Trin)
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:14:19 -0500
On 15 Apr 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup linux.redhat, in article
<Xns97A6C3C02592CRonBnoSPAMblizorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, RonB wrote:
Moe Trin wrote:
Current status at 'fedoralegacy.com' is 7.3 and 9 are still supported,
7.2 and 8.0 errata to May 2004 (5 months after official support
ended), Fedora 1, 2, and 3 still supported.
FC4 and FC5 are _officially_ supported by Red Hat. The support for the
other versions is unofficial.
Interesting. Odd the way it jumps around.
The rational is "what the people want". 'fedoralegacy' support ends if there
isn't enough interest in a version. Now, as to the version numbers above,
7.2 was a good distribution - I think we had as much as a quarter of our
systems running it. 7.3 came out because they weren't ready to jump to
"new stuff" six months after 7.2 came out, and this was possibly the best
release they had. We moved nearly all of our 6.2 boxes up to 7.3, even
though the official support for 6.2 continued until just before RH9 came
8.0 was less popular despite a lot of people chasing version numbers. We
did evaluate it, and it was a non-starter for us. But X.0 versions have
been less desirable since, I dunno, 4.0. (There was no 3.0 - marketing
made it 3.0.3 which was the last of the 1.2.x kernels. And 2.0 was
essentially the first production release - introduced rpm back in 1995.
I know that we installed both 2.0 and 2.1 as our first Red Hat releases.
There was a 1.0 called Mother's Day  that was not much more than
9 was even more short-lived than 8.0. It didn't help that Red Hat decided
to end the Red Hat Linux (originally called Red Hat Software Linux - which
is where the RHS initials you occasionally find in config files comes
from), announcing the demise in July only 14 weeks after RH9 came out.
Again, we had evaluated 9, and actually had plans to install it on the
last of our outdated 6.2 systems - that went nowhere. We actually
installed a custom version of Conectiva (a Brazilian Red Hat clone)
instead, while trying to identify a replacement distribution.
If everything goes well on the test computer, I'm going to give Fedora5
25 Gigs on my main computer, give it 256 Meg and start a new Fedora install
from scratch. (Didn't want to mess up FC1 if FC5 has problems.)
Good solution. For perspective, we are in a production environment, and it
takes a minimum of 10 weeks for us to decide what a new install will look
like, and then test this on systems that mirror representative versions of
our production systems. Switchover normally occurred on a weekend - with
everyone in IT installing (we don't "upgrade") systems from a custom CD
(basically copying the CD to the hard drive, and setting hostnames/IP
addresses, etc.). Monday morning can be "interesting", but we only had to
back out once - and that was only on the print servers.
The mirror server I found for the eastern United States, from
www.fedora.redhat.com, is lightning fast. Each iso image downloaded in
about 20 minutes.
Used to was trying to find a fast mirror when a new release came out was
a loosing proposition. Once Red Hat started supplying .iso images in 2000
(RH6.2), the distribution channels would be saturated for the first week
or two after a new release came out. Prior to that, you had to download
the binary rpms and an install program and master them yourself, OR do
a regular install over FTP. Not many people went that route, so finding a
mirror before RH6.2 was relatively easy.
- Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810
- From: RonB
- Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810
- Prev by Date: And another thing!
- Next by Date: Fedora Core 5 hangs with ldap configured
- Previous by thread: Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810
- Next by thread: Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810