RedHat 9 upgrade

[Kevin K]

> Hi Jeremy,
> Thanks - sounds as if I should go for CentOS 4 then.
>
> Andy
>
> On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:46, Gaddis, Jeremy L. wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2006 18:43:51 +0000, Andy Allen <andy.allen at virgin.net>  
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the tip - I've looked at Centos and it looks  
>>> brilliant. Only
>>> trouble is, I'm not sure which version to go for - CentOS 2, 3 or  
>>> 4, as
>>> I'm still not totally familiar with all the intricacies of Linux.  
>>> RedHat
>>> 9 was pretty easy to install and set up, so can I cope with CentOS?
>>
>> I think you'll be happy with CentOS.  A customer of mine had a number
>> of RH9 boxes that we moved to CentOS after Red Hat EOL'd RH9.
>>
>> I don't track CentOS, so I don't know what version it's on, but  
>> you'll
>> want to go with the latest release.
>>
>> -j
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy L. Gaddis, MCP, GCWN
>> http://www.linuxwiz.net/
>
> -- 
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

CentOS 3.X is essentially a supported version of RH9.  Based  
originally on a stable version of RH9, and updated since.

CentOS 4.X has a 2.6 based kernel, and originally based on one of the  
Fedora Core releases.

4 should run most programs for RH9, and has newer versions of  
provided packages.

The Fedora Core versions are more bleeding edge, with much shorter  
support lifetimes.  If you have stuck with RH9 all these years, you  
will probably be happier with a RHEL based system.