A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support...

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Edmund White wrote:

> The hardware on my existing servers is well-supported. Currently, HP's
> Proliant health drivers work the best with Redhat 8 (versus the RHAS 2.1
> drivers). I don't wish to make changes to those system because they are in
> 24/7 environments. In time, with new server deployments, I'll make an
> decision about Red Hat's ES and AS offerings. HP does not have drivers for
> those variants yet. That's expected in late November.

I don't know what _drivers_ are you talking about, but RHEL usually brings
updated drivers for current HW, net and SCSI mainly.
And 2.4.23preX already bring latest drivers.

And if you insert *any external* driver in your kernel, Red Hat will not support
this configuration!!!!!

> I'm not concerned about the official hardware support on currently-stable
> production systems.

I don't know how will take it HP. But others HW/SW companies are going to drop
support for RHL EOL OS (no more new drivers, ...), as usual.

> Yep. We knew about the EOL, but didn't anticipate the end of the Red Hat
> Consumer product line.

In this announcement RH said that Consumer product line only will get _1_
year of 'lifetime'. And did you consider to do a migration every year ?

Well Fedora is out, and it will get 6-9 month of 'official' lifetime. Plus
some months more with this project. If you were happy with RHL then Fedora
is for you.

> We're not concerned about the local exploits detailed in that changelog.

There are remote too.

> It's not an issue given the design of our software. The errata kernels
> were too much of a moving target with regard to HP Proliant driver
> support. In addition, the SGI XFS filesystem is very important to our
> application.

It was just an example, but I don't know if 2.4.21 or 2.4.22 have more
critical bugs. Kernel hackers recomends stay with latest distribution kernels.
Otherwise you will have to check linux-kernel *every day* to know if a 'stable'
kernel has some critical bug.

> I simply examined the patches and RPM spec file for the 2.4.21 RHEL
> source. Many of the backported patches are nice, but irrelevant in our

to examine them is not enough. RHEL is oriented to servers.

> No, but I need a few simple things.... XFS support isn't there, and it's
> not easy to patch over the hundreds of intrusive RHEL patches to 2.4.21.

XFS is not a simple thing is a _very instrusive patch_ .

--
HTML mails are going to trash automagically