Re: Long-term Stability Distros: RHEL/Centos 5 versus 6 (was Re: [tlug] Flash and Firexfox 2)

[jep200404 <jep200404@example.com>]

Scott Robbins wrote:

> I do find that CentOS is usually pretty much set it and forget it. 

Yup. Agreed. 

> I
> would recommend waiting the week or two (that's not a firm date--unlike
> Ubuntu/Fedora, rather than release on schedule, they make sure it's
> working first) and getting 5.3 rather than 5.2.  

5.3 versus 5.2 is minor. RHEL 5.3 has already been released. 
(Centos 5.3 will follow in several weeks, figure a month.) 
If you install Centos 5.2 now, the next yum update after 
Centos 5.3 is released will take care of that. The first time 
I saw yum update increment the minor release number, it scared me. 
Now, I hardly even notice. 

I don't know how long after setting things up, Jim wants to be 
able to "forget it". If five years is enough, then RHEL/Centos 5 
should suffice right now. If he wants longer support, 
then waiting for RHEL/Centos 6 would be of interest.