Rh 9

[jbiz718]

Hello all.

With the release of RedHat 9 for public download today April 7th, I am wondering if anyone else has used this yet.

Currently I am in the middle of downloading v 9 and should be ready to install tommorow.

Let me know

Joe

[Robert]

I downloaded it (took about 1 hr for all 3 disks) and have installed it.

My server is:

1.2ghz
20gb hard drive
256mb of ram

it's a test server I just built to see how RH9 is.

So far, I can't install gd2.0, mysql,apache or Php. LOL. So I am re-installing Rh9 and letting it install apache, mysql and gd for me.

We'll see!

[Esr Tek]

I'm gettin it for home use..

I may look into upgrading my dedicated 7.3 box, but w cPanel I am not sure how much hassle it is :(

[Robert]

Ok well I didn't like RH9.0. Re-downloaded RH7.3 and will install that.

[JeremyV]

If you keep your 7.3 system up to date with most of the security patches and kernel updates and such you really aren't benefiting much from upgrading to RH 9. Essentially it is an install with all of the previous fixes already in place + a lot of GUI enhancements and stuff you don't really need for a server environment anyway :)

[Robert]

Rh9 has a newer Kernel. But it's giving me a heck lot of problems. Imma try to re-install it 1 more time (god I'm way too nice)

[JeremyV]

yes, the kernel may be newer, but as you can see, it isn't worth it :D

I wouldn't trust 9 since 8 was just recently released a very short time ago as well, and even 8 was giving a lot of trouble on servers :o: That's why I stick with the tried and true. Maybe when RH 9.2 or 9.3 comes out BEFORE they release RH 10 it would be a possible upgrade.

[jbiz718]

Well for me I am trying to use RH as my desktop of the future.

So though I use older rh versions at work on servers for home the newer versions are interesting.

[Esr Tek]

Originally posted by JeremyV:

I wouldn't trust 9 since 8 was just recently released a very short time ago as well, and even 8 was giving a lot of trouble on servers :o:

I hear that 9 is 8.1 ;)

They just renamed it 9 and basically to keep up w mandrake and othe competing OS's ;) :baghead:

[JeremyV]

haha, stupid marketing tricks :D I haven't been following it enough, but I keep hearing of a lot of problems, so I just stay away. I do run mandrake 9.1 on my home machines... but still won't trust anything other than RH 7.3 on a production server right now :)

[no1v2]

I do hate Red Hat on servers, but if I had to use it on one of mine (and I do all too often) I would use 7.3. On a desktop/workstation that's a whole different story of course. There my top choices are currently Red Hat 9 and Mandrake 9.1. Now that I've used RH9 I need to reburn the latest Mandrake for comparison...damn coasters!

[Chicken]

Originally posted by Esr Tek:

I hear that 9 is 8.1 ;)

They just renamed it 9 and basically to keep up w mandrake and othe competing OS's ;) :baghead:
Didn't MSN do this with their dialup services? I recall a slew of ads promoting AOL's new version 7.0 and then suddenly MSN's was version 8. I don't recall many other versions of MSN, but am guessing they didn't release 1-7. Maybe 1 or 2, but not that many.

[no1v2]

Solaris is another good example of version number bumping. Isn't part of the point of year-based release versions to avoid having to do that? You'd especially think Microsoft would do that with MSN... It's a good thing for Red Hat that they didn't try to name it Red Hat Linux 2003 though. That really wouldn't have gone down well with Linux users :D