CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective

[Tony Nelson]

At 11:11 AM +0200 5/26/07, Matej Cepl wrote:
>On 2007-05-25, 16:45 GMT, Tony Nelson wrote:
>>>>>That is you can't get the security-only parts of 4.5 or
>>>>>beyond without taking the bugfixes, but you do have the
>>>>>choice to update only certain programs.
>>
>> Your answer is not clear.  Possibly you didn't understand the question?
>> Note that CentOS also provides up2date access.
>
>RHN is *much more* than just up2date -- that's just a final stage
>of delivering bits over the wire. The biggest value of RHN (and
>one of reasons why people shell out big bucks to get RHEL instead
>of using Fedora/CentOS/... ) is an ability to manage through
>web-interfaces many (think thousands) of computers at once, to
>decide which packages needs to be upgraded, which computers are
>in danger of security exploits, etc. Again, all on many many
>computers at once.
>
>See https://www.redhat.com/rhn/ (BTW,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Network totally misses the
>point when mushing RHN to one bag with yum and apt).

OK, now I understand you.  Rhn still doesn't seem to automatically separate
security updates from bug fixes or enhancements.  It would make
provisioning and managing many servers somewhat simpler than otherwise, but
one would still need to choose the updates one wants if one prefers not to
have to requalify the OS a few times a year.  I'm still surprised at the
large updates batch I just got for CentOS 4, which presumably reflects the
same batch on RHEL 4.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:'                       <mailto:tonynelson at georgeanelson.com>
      '                              <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>