Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd May 2007 22:30 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Thread beginning with comment 237124
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Uhm.... rather old kernel there
by wibbit on Fri 4th May 2007 10:50
in reply to "Uhm.... rather old kernel there"
2.6.9 in RHEL4.5 while 2.6.21 just got released.
Sorry, but I don't get it, why would anyone use something like RHEL for anything at all.
Stability and consistency.
It may also be worth while taking in to account, that Redhat also backport a significant amount of code to their older kernels.
Edited 2007-05-04 10:57
RE: Uhm.... rather old kernel there
by Sabz on Fri 4th May 2007 11:58
in reply to "Uhm.... rather old kernel there"
2.6.9 in RHEL4.5 while 2.6.21 just got released.
Sorry, but I don't get it, why would anyone use something like RHEL for anything at all.
Sorry, but I don't get it, why would anyone use something like RHEL for anything at all.
no point redhat putting a 2.6.21 kernel in a older Enterprise Linux when they could bring out RHEL6 with that kernel an have all the awesome features enabled , where as if they did that with RHEL4.5 they'd have that many callers ringing up sayting, ' why isnt this working etc etc, an that would be a bad move if they were to do that
RE: Uhm.... rather old kernel there
by chicklin on Fri 4th May 2007 13:52
in reply to "Uhm.... rather old kernel there"
So, if you're running an Oracle RAC cluster or a PeopleSoft installation on RHEL4.4/4.5, what specific feature of the 2.6.21 kernel are you missing?
Don't get too hung up on kernel version numbers. If there's nothing there forcing you to upgrade to that version, who cares? As long as you're in the ballpark (2.6.x) and it works for you, that's good enough.






Member since:
2007-04-25
2.6.9 in RHEL4.5 while 2.6.21 just got released.
Sorry, but I don't get it, why would anyone use something like RHEL for anything at all.