Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 25 May 2011 08:18:31 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is where SL differs from both RHEL and CentOS.
>
> We do not force you to update to the latest release.
>
> If a person installs SL 6.0, they will stay at SL 6.0, only getting the
> security errata, until they wish to update.
> And then they don't have to update to the latest either. They can update to
> 6.2 even though we are at 6.5.
>
> This was done for the scientists, but I've seen plenty of non-scientists
> like this feature (and many that don't). This allows people to sit on a
> release an not worry about some feature breaking their program.
>
> In fact, RedHat even started allowing people to do this, for an extra fee.
Yes, Extended Update Support (EUS), that is. I should say SL is even
better. RH does not support 5.5, and the support for 5.4 ends 6 months
after the 5.6 release.
Akemi
|
|
|