Roelof van der Kleij wrote:
> We chose SL for the same reasons.
> 
> In general I get the feeling we are getting in a catch-22 situation. SL
> delivers us stability and easier maintenance, but at the price of
> increased instability or even a lack of support on newer hardware
> because of the older kernels and the delay in backporting of newer
> kernel features. I have no idea what the answer is, but I do have the
> idea the problem is increasing.
> 
> For now, we just try to get our customers to stay away from the latest
> and greatest hardware.

A useful compromise for some might be SL5 and a Fedora kernel. If the 
demand exists, our hosts might find a place to store them, or link to 
their repo by installing a (disabled) yum repo configuration for it.

There may be problems with compatibility, but my experience with RHL 
(before RHEL/Fedora) suggests it will probably work.

Users could enable the kernel repo (or their local version) only on 
those systems that need it, and reevaluate its need as new point 
releases surface.


> 
> (As an aside: it turned out Fedora core 8 also didn't work on this
> particular model).
> 

Ah, well!


-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
[log in to unmask]  [log in to unmask]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)