On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:40, Randall J. Parr wrote:
> The problem is that not being able to upgrade "in-place" reliably means
FWLIW, I have never had a problem updating a system. I've been doing
it since 2.1 and, with a little prep work, it goes fairly smoothly.
--
"It's time to KISS
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 08:40, Randall J. Parr wrote:
> The problem is that not being able to upgrade "in-place" reliably means
> we generally have to install new versions on new hardware and
> merge/migrate the configuration and data OR we have to make backups,
> wipe the old hardware and the
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 23:40, Panu Matilainen uttered:
I just keep wondering why people thing upgrading their systems between
releases with up2date would somehow magically break less things than
upgrading with the current system. And don't bother saying "because we now
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 23:40, Panu Matilainen uttered:
> I just keep wondering why people thing upgrading their systems between
> releases with up2date would somehow magically break less things than
> upgrading with the current system. And don't bother saying "because we now
> need to reboot" -
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 02:06:11PM -0500, Buck wrote:
> >
> > I personally like the idea that 8.0 can be upgraded to 8.1 in an up2date
> > session.
>
> Where did you find this documented?
> a) That's never been supported in any previous release combina
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 02:29, Denice wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 12:56, Ed wrote:
> > > Did I just read that Red Hat is dropping it's support down to one year
> > > for it's non-Advanced Server products?
> >
> > It's not a drop. They've always advert
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 08:15, Keith Winston wrote:
> Exactly. This has be me questioning my recent decision to move to Red
> Hat from another distro. If they want everyone to move to more
> expensive products (like Advanced Server), I think they will be
> disappointed. For a large business, A
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 02:06:11PM -0500, Buck wrote:
>
> I personally like the idea that 8.0 can be upgraded to 8.1 in an up2date
> session.
Where did you find this documented?
a) That's never been supported in any previous release combination
b) 8.1 has not yet been released
--
Ed Wilts
f Of Tommy McNeely
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Support Changes
--
Psyche-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 10:55, Ed wrote:
> Considering I just wrote up paper for my company which concludes that we
> should be deploying Red Hat rather than other distributions, Red Hat
> might want to consider who their real supporters are. It's those of us
> that have been hacking Linux, and
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 09:46, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Yes, but the way it's worded protects Red Hat from lawsuits if they ever go
> out of business. By stating that they would absolutly support foo, for bar
> years, they would be stuck with it, even if they ran out of money and
> everything, and
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 09:36, Tommy McNeely wrote:
> Actually... Last weekend I just re-installed a server that was running
> 7.0 still... it was doing what it needed to do, but the hard drive was
> going bad, so we re-installed before we lost the data... I think LOTS of
> people who actually r
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 07:34, Denice uttered:
Yes I read the page. I suppose that they mean 'the last point release'
when they refer to 'certain popular releases'. So why not just say it and
allay peoples fears (real or imagined)? I'm pretty sure that it would
corre
Jesse Keating wrote:
Yes, but the way it's worded protects Red Hat from lawsuits if they ever go
out of business. By stating that they would absolutly support foo, for bar
years, they would be stuck with it, even if they ran out of money and
everything, and they would be open to all kinds of l
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 07:34, Denice uttered:
> Yes I read the page. I suppose that they mean 'the last point release'
> when they refer to 'certain popular releases'. So why not just say it and
> allay peoples fears (real or imagined)? I'm pretty sure that it would
> correspond to the real-
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 January 2003 02:29, Denice uttered:
> > By these measures the support for 7.3 might end in a few months. Okay,
> > probably longer if you argue what this phrase means:
> >
> > "Beginning with the 8.0 release, Red Hat will provide errata m
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 02:29, Denice uttered:
> By these measures the support for 7.3 might end in a few months. Okay,
> probably longer if you argue what this phrase means:
>
> "Beginning with the 8.0 release, Red Hat will provide errata maintenance
> for at least 12 months from the date o
Denice wrote:
It would probably be extremely wise of Red Hat to assure people that some
patches _will_ be made available for a longer period of time, say two years.
I'm thinking of apache, php, openssh, etc. -- server daemons or subsystems
that more often result in a high level security alert.
I
On 27 Jan 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 12:56, Ed wrote:
> > Did I just read that Red Hat is dropping it's support down to one year
> > for it's non-Advanced Server products?
>
> It's not a drop. They've always advertised support as "at least one
> year".
>
It would proba
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 12:56, Ed wrote:
> Did I just read that Red Hat is dropping it's support down to one year
> for it's non-Advanced Server products?
It's not a drop. They've always advertised support as "at least one
year".
--
Psyche-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.re
On Monday 27 January 2003 12:56, Ed wrote:
> Did I just read that Red Hat is dropping it's support down to one year
> for it's non-Advanced Server products?
Note, that it's "at least" one year. They could support it for longer.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE
For Web Services and Linux Consulting, V
On Monday 27 January 2003 12:56, Ed wrote:
> Did I just read that Red Hat is dropping it's support down to one year
> for it's non-Advanced Server products?
yep. http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/
--
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE
For Web Services and Linux Consulting, Visit --> j2Solutions.ne
22 matches
Mail list logo
