RH 7.2 vs RH9

**asmodeus** · 08-29-2003

Hi all,

This has probably been covered a thousand times already, BUT I'm new and didn't see it here.

Are there any compelling reasons to go to 9? Or any not to? We've got a program that runs on 7.2, but i'm a little concerned that we are going to run into compatibility problems with later hardware and such, we've struck a couple already with nforce chipsets and a seeming incompatibilty with grub.

Before you ask, this isn't really my field, my linux knowledge is very limited, so don't give me to much s**t if I've said something dumb

Thanks.

**Dolda2000** · 08-29-2003

That completely depends on what kind of program it is. Most core libraries retain compatibility between releases, but not all, and especially not rarely used auxiliary libraries.

In general, RH9 is newer than 7.2, so it has more bugfixes and less vulnerabilities.

**asmodeus** · 08-31-2003

its mainly a concern over the maturity of apache 2. They're 2.0.47 I think now aren't they? Is that far enough, or should we wait until 2.1 or something?

Boy don't i sound lIke a newbie! I hate it haha

**Dolda2000** · 08-31-2003

Oh, Apache 2 is mature. Rest firmly assured thereof.

**asmodeus** · 09-01-2003

Is it?
I should get you to convince our programmer of this!
lol

thanks

**bpark** · 09-01-2003

How is security in Red Hat? It seems like new releases are released too fast in my opinion but as long as it's stable and secure, I don't see a reason why version 9 would be bad. Spending about 7 months on 7.2, I can say that I really despised it.

**skyfolly** · 09-01-2003

One of my cousins said that RH7.3 is better as a server, he said that ASP is better supported in rh7.3's apache 1.3.28. I have no idea about it.

For me I prefer RH9.0 since it supports more hardwares.

Thread Tools

Display

RH 7.2 vs RH9

Posting Permissions