RH rips again Was: extend EOL for Red Hat Linux 9?
whooperhsd3 at earthlink.net
Mon Apr 12 21:03:16 UTC 2004
Mark A. Hoover said:
> >> While not the original poster, I would argue that depending on your
> >> use of RedHat 9 (or earlier) that RHWS is not an upgrade as the last
> >> time I looked at the RHWS package list it did not include Apache,
> >> Bind, or many of the other common server daemons.
> > Includes apache, sendmail, samba, nfs. Does not include
> I didn't see apache when I looked, but it may have very well been there.
> > amanda-server, arptables_jf, bind, caching-nameserver, dhcp,
> > freeradius, inews, inn, krb5-server, netdump-server, openldap-servers,
> > pxe, quagga, radvd, rarpd, redhat-config-bind, redhat-config-netboot,
> > tftp-server, tux, vsftpd, ypserv.
> > Some things are just plain gone (mailman, some *-devel packages, and
> > some others), and some have been moved to the Extras channel (SQL
> > servers, e.g.).
> > Most of the not-included ones are not really necessary for a
> > workstation (although I'd miss bind and caching-nameserver on my
> > laptop).
> I personally would miss bind, caching-nameserver, dhcp, vsftpd,
The Whitebox versions work well. Can't see what you would need some of
these on every workstation for.
> and mysql.
In the extras channel.
> > If you want server capability and you don't want to pay RHES prices or
> > get RHES service (and you're not an academic), then you want Fedora
> > Core or Whitebox or one of the other RHEL clones.
> The point was that for those who paid for RH9 service that moving to
> RHWS isn't truly an upgrade if you're using any of the missing features.
IIRC, Red Hat also offers RHEL ES to the people with longer subscriptions,
but I might just be remembering the half-price deal.
More information about the users