OMSA for Red Hat 9?
Brian A. Seklecki
lavalamp at spiritual-machines.org
Fri Feb 2 14:00:54 CST 2007
> You've never encountered a "legacy machine" before?
Generally ISV businesses have a legal and moral obligation to their
clients to ensure that they're running a vendor-supported system.
Migration planning is normally contractually obligated.
In the Cathedral and the Bazaar, E.S.R. makes a lot of good references to
the value of vendor-support and commercial software in his
The value of commercial software drops to $0 when the vendor discontinues
service. RH9 was essentially commercial software in that aspect. ISVs
inherit the cost-overhead of backporting patches/bug/security-fixes to
vendor unsupported branches.
This is where CentOS comes in.
Look on the bright side: Cisco and Net-SNMP are all maintaining three
generations/branches of supported code. >:}
What Redhat is Redhat doing? It's hard to say. They're pretty tight
lipped about it. I mean, what we're really talking about is a Libc
version, a toolchain version set, and the kernel. But in general it's a
problem with trying to coordinate linux ditro releng with thousands of
other projects releng.
It's just not very ISV-friendly. It's one of the best arguments
anti-Linux pundents have right now. Maintaining a long-standing
stable/legacy release like IOS 12.1, FreeBSD 4.x, Net-SNMP 5.1.x, Apache
1.3.x, HFUX 11, etc is very important. The RedHat's and PHP's out there
just don't get it yet.
We're way off-topic at this point, anyway. Release engineering theory is
a topic for another forum
> I'm not real happy about them. Heck, there are still a couple of Red
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge