Novell, Red Hat Release Updated Distributions 31
Joyce writes "Novell today announced the availability of SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 Service Pack 2 (SP2), containing enhancements in virtualization, management, hardware enablement and interoperability. Several improvements specific to SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Real Time 10 are also included. Delivering Xen version 3.2, SP2 includes several virtualization advances, including support for fully virtualized Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2003 and the live migration of those Windows Server guests across physical machines. Advances in high availability and storage management such as updates to Heartbeat 2 and OCFS2 are also included." And an anonymous reader points out today's release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5.2, which brings "a broad refresh of hardware support and improved quality, combined with new features and enhancements in areas such as virtualization, desktop, networking, storage & clustering and security. Virtualization of very large systems, with up to 64 CPUs and 512 GB of memory, is now possible. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2 Desktop includes enhanced support for laptop suspend/hibernate and resume, updated graphics drivers and a comprehensive update of desktop applications, including OpenOffice 2.3 and Firefox v3," and points out this guide for upgrading your RHEE system.
Re:CentOS (Score:4, Informative)
First time release (for example, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0): Our target goal is 1 month. This is obviously the longest situation as this is a BRANCH or version of CentOS that has never been tested and it requires much QA and usability tests, etc.
Update set release (for example, 3.9, 4.5, 5.1): Our target goal is two weeks. This type of update normally changes 10%-30% of the packages in it's tree and requires more QA than individual releases but less time to test than a whole new tree. Longest time has been one month.
Normal security or bugfix updates between update sets: Our target goal is 72 hours and we normally complete these within 24 hours.
So
The realistic date that I would expect the release announcement (if we have no unforeseen problems) would be in the neighborhood of 26-30 November 2007.
TOO SOON (Score:5, Funny)
No way... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I guess Novel and Redhat were already in sync (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now Microsoft has to start paying the "F/OSS Tax" and we STILL bitch and moan.
Novell got them for almost a half billion, thanks to F/OSS.
Microsoft is being forced to support ODF, thanks to F/OSS.
Google is eating Microsofts' lunch in search, thanks to F/OSS.
Re:I guess Novel and Redhat were already in sync (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Shuttleworth here but that's what Ubuntu brings to the party.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't anymore, though, and that's a shame.
Higher public profile among whom?! (Score:1)
Really Big and Evil Business(TM) cares very little about JCL.
But it does about Novel and RH.
Re: (Score:2)
RedHat is the company who makes OSS work as much as possible, and contributes huge amounts of work to all areas of OSS
and
Novel is the company who does a similar amount of work, maybe less, but has a lot of buddy-buddy Microsoft ads all over the internet
So basically he already stated how they've contributed a ton of work to F/OSS products. What exactly was your complaint other than the remark about Novel and Microsoft? You just rehashed everything with different wording.
Firefox 3 included (RHEL) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
gcc 2.96 was a stupid, boneheaded thing for them to have done, but it's not like it was included in something that was supposed to be
And I don't know WTH you're saying about libc2. I assume that's glibc2, which was first in Debian 2.1, which I used and had no especial problem with.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And as maligned as gcc 2.96 was, it was a fairly solid compiler. The vast majority of compile failures were bad code that older versions of GCC allowed.
Re: (Score:1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html [gnu.org]
IIRC, the reason for going to 2.96 was an edge case of bash not working on some fringe (big iron?) platform and one other thing.
Not a reason to move to 2.96.
On glibc2 - they moved before it was ready for production. yes, some people say this helps them find more bugs and helps push it production ready - if this is the case, why do you guys bitch about Microsoft pushing out beta stuff as production ready? That's a
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the upstream maintainers aren't going to support a vendor branch. You fork it, you fix it. When you have the resources, sometimes that makes sense.sometimes that makes sense. In this case Red Hat was in a good position to do so since they employed a substantial number of key GCC developers. In fact it wa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No really, I have fewer problems with beta 5 in Ubuntu hardy than I did with firefox 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
CentOS 5.2 (Score:2)
Re:CentOS 5.2 (Score:4, Interesting)
RHEL 5.4 came out on 11-08, CentOS 5.1 came out on 12-02.
Judging by that, a month sounds likely. Of course I'm sure the answer they would give is "when it's done".
eCryptfs now in RHEL 5.2 (Score:2)
http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.2/html/Release_Notes/RELEASE-NOTES-U2-x86-en.html [redhat.com]
http://ecryptfs.sf.net/ [sf.net]