Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Red Hat Software Security Upgrades Linux

Red Hat Pushes Out Enterprise Linux 6.1 90

wiredmikey writes "Red Hat today released Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.1, the first update to the platform since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 back in November 2010. The latest version brings improvements in system reliability, scalability and performance, and support for upcoming system hardware. The latest version also delivers patches and security updates as well as enhancements in virtualization, file systems, scheduler, resource management and high availability." The Register, too, outlines the new release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Pushes Out Enterprise Linux 6.1

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    They're moving to 6.1 after point releases used to take them years. Case in point, 5.4 to 5.5 and then 5.5 to 5.6.
    And yet, where's the long awaited Centos 6? It's been more than 6 months, and checking distrowatch, it's the longest in more than 5 years for any "de-branding" effort.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      It's open source, de-brand it yourself.
    • by armanox ( 826486 ) <> on Thursday May 19, 2011 @04:33PM (#36184194) Homepage Journal

      I'd recommend giving Scientific Linux a shot - their version of EL6 came out not too far behind RH.

      • by M1FCJ ( 586251 )

        But their 5.6 is not out yet. CentOS has 5.6 out and lagging on 6. Since they were released very closely, there was a vote on the CentOS lists on priorities. For example, RHEL 6 is still not certified by Oracle for RDBMS so a lot of people prefer still installing 5.6. Hence majority preferred to get the updates instead of trying out something new.

    • by linuxgurugamer ( 917289 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @04:54PM (#36184468) Homepage
      CentOS, while a great community effort, is lagging too much. If you want the lated RedHat unbranded, go to [] Quoting from their page: "SL is a Linux release put together by Fermilab, CERN, and various other labs and universities around the world. Its primary purpose is to reduce duplicated effort of the labs, and to have a common install base for the various experimenters." I just use it, and am slowly replacing my CentOS boxes with SL.
      • where's your Scientfic Linux 5.6 then??!! Oh, your SL team was too busy going for the ooo-shiny 6 so that wee little thing got left behind for now.....meanwhile Centos has 5.6 and has put 6 to their QA team. Many people need a most rational road map.....
        • by Rob from RPI ( 4309 ) <> on Thursday May 19, 2011 @05:46PM (#36185092) Homepage

          Unfortunately, there are hundreds of people willing to help with CentOS 6, but the team has just ignored them. There was a 'list of outstanding bugs' that was linked to in the 'When will CentOS 6 be released' thread, and a couple of days after that was posted, every bug had a patch against it.

          They ignored that for another couple of months, wrote their own patches, and then went off and did other things.

          Whilst Scientific Linux 5.6 is easily installable. Install 5.5 and then run 'yum update'. There's an alpha ISO around, and I think there was a beta due out shortly.

          • you miss the point, there is no SL 5.6 release. If you can fart around with "alpha" and "beta" that's another matter.....
            • I've reviewed it for a recent partner: the SL update repository has _all_ the RHEL 5.6 components and ongoing updates. CentOS held up all updates for months until they completed their CentOS 5.6 release, which left their users with significant security risks and compatibility problems with use or bundling of upstream RHEL freeware components. SL is also cooperating with links to very useful 3rdparty repositories contained in their core distribution, such as EPEL and RPMforge and altrepo. These are component

        • Why should you respin for every update? The (S)RPM's are available so a simple yum update gives you 5.6 just fine.... and if you're working offline a simple USB stick/disk/DVD with all the updates works just fine as well. CentOS is too stuck in their ways to keep up with RedHat it appears. The 5.6 release took WEEKS for the CentOS team to be finished... so I wouldn't boast too much with that CentOS 5.6 release, judging by the posts on the centos-dev mailing list I wasn't the only one 'disappointed' in the
      • How fast did SL 5.6 come out? Oh, wait.. it hasn't.. So if you have stuff running on SL 5.5, that you don't want/can't move to 6 yet your sitting and waiting...

        4.9, 5.6, and 6.0 were all released in a very short time.. CentOS decided to do the ones that were currently being used first. SL decided to go with the new shiny one (which is nice about being small, and not having many people using your software on externally facing things)

        CentOS 6 is looking to be another week or two.

    • What do you imagine "debranding" is? they have to compile everything from source and test, not a trivial process.

      The distro is getting bigger, building and testing "debranded" version will take longer unless more volunteers, money and hardware are donated. they give the world their work free of charge, but turds like you sit on your ass helping no one but bitch.

      • by M1FCJ ( 586251 )

        Funnily I don't see anyone complaining about Oracle Enterprise Linux. Weird. Their main aim is undercutting RedHat and making them go bankrupt by selling the same(NOT!) product.

        The same product - OEL bundles Unbreakable Linux Kernel. It might be a good thing but breaks compatibility with RHEL/CentOS and caused headaches for me.

        • the clients of my employer are huge operations with budgets in the tens of millions to over a billion; they all run Oracle DBMS and related products but I have yet to see anyone using Oracle Enterprise Linux. It's all RedHat for the choice of Linux, and Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, and even some Windows for the rest.

    • It's seems they are in the final stages. Apparently external mirrors will be synced June 6. []
  • Many places use Redhat and I had to downgrade to Fedora as 5.x is way too old.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Then you're using the wrong distro in the first place. 5.x is in no way outdated, it's well within it's supported lifetime.

      If you want a rapid update cycle, then Fedora is where you're supposed to be anyway, that's it's purpose.

  • by dragonquest ( 1003473 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @04:49PM (#36184420)
    RHEL 6.1 is shipping with Perl 5.10.x which went legacy with the release of Perl 5.14 this week. Ah, moving targets! Though doesn't seem too bad since Debian Squeeze is also shipped with 5.10 in February this year.
    • eh, RedHaT supports the Perl they ship, and charge money for doing so. meaning they make their own patches (can be good or it can be bad)
  • ...if there were a single VM hosting provider on earth offering RHEL 6 images. I know they pissed some people off with the new pricing structure, but Red Hat has always cut special deals with hosting providers, so I'm forced to wonder what they hell they've done to piss them off so much that nobody is offering it more than 6 months after release.

    There are an awful lot of people who need the kinds of data center reliability that need million-dollar investments, but don't have the economies of scale to do it

    • I've worked with Red Hat distros for over ten years. It's very simple really, hosting companies don't want to deal with half-baked crap. Anything from Red Hat ending in a .0 is half baked crap. Been true in 1998, true now, no exceptions. Give Red Hat another six months or more and they'll have the bugs and kinks worked out of 6, but that steamin' pile is not fit for production now, somewhere around 6.2 or 6.3 will be golden.
      • This is so true - it makes me laugh even more at the monkeys who are clamouring for centos 6.0.

      • You should really take a step back from the keyboard and look at the history. .0 releases are, without fail, a major step forward in the technologies that Red Hat want to put in their distro. New kernel base, new packages, new security, new authentication etc. The list goes on. To call it "half-baked crap" is really little short of a half-baked comment. You can demand a flawless OS all you like, but without early adopter customers (of whom I've worked for several), these things don't stand a chance of g

      • I worked in Red Hat Support when both RHEL 4 and RHEL 5 were released. Yes, each one had growing pains that made it unsuitable for many users. Most of those problems involved:

        1) 3rd-party kernel modules
        2) combinations of motherboards/BIOSes/peripherals/firmwares that each individually worked fine, but interacted in a way that caused undefined behavior that just happened to work correctly on the previous release
        3) hardware that wasn't available for QA prior to release
        4) entirely new features that had never

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.