[TriLUG] OS recommendations/Aging software issues

[Dave Sorenson]

Look at Cent OS. It is an opensource distro compiled from the current 
Red Hat enterprise source code. Security/ bug fixes are very speedy and 
reliable (IME)

PHB advice: Point out that the older OS is no longer supported 
officially by the vendor so security updates could be difficult to come 
by. And version dependancies can usually be solved reasonably easily in 
Linux.

OR

Take the "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" route. Set up a 
"test" server and see if everything will work. If it doesn't work 
easily, all you're out is a few hours for the OS install and you can 
justify that by the "need" to investigate and test in preparation for 
the real install. ;)


Dave



Marc M wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> I work for a major defense contractor that is very tight with money at 
> times. Two years ago, before I came, they got RH 9 (bought or downloaded- 
> whatever). I guess that got deemed appropriate to buy at the time, and it 
> has been sitting here getting old ever since. The purpose of this server is 
> to run Symantec Manhunt on it as an IDS. They bought Manhunt at the same 
> time and never got around to deploying it until now. 
> 
> Now I am about to deploy a linux server (Dell) and I am trying to figure out 
> which version to go with - RH 9, FC 1-3, or whatever. I want it to be 
> redhat-based since I am the main admin, and I am more comfortable with that 
> than on debian based systems. 
> 
> On the other hand I am not sure what to do. My boss makes the argument that 
> we need to run the oldest, since he has seen versioning issues and conflicts 
> in this situation. However most of that is in the world of Windows which 
> does stupid things by default as we all know. 
> 
> In this scenario my argument is <still> that we should go with something 
> more recent. I don't like the idea of putting something out there that is so 
> old it isimpractical by today's standards, that am going to think is stupid. 
> I guess there is some wisdom in being able to keep the age of the OS in sync 
> with the age of the software, but in the linux realm, that really isn't the 
> same issue as it is in other areas - right? OTOH I don't want to do a 'yum 
> update' on the box and not be able to get updates because the version is so 
> <frickin'> old. I think FC2 would be a good choice. Although it is still 
> old, it at least is a little bit ahead of RH9. An additional concern - even 
> if I were to deploy FC2, I would probably want to upgrade that too. Is that 
> gonna be a problem? Can I upgrade versions of Fedora (2 to 3 to whatever) on 
> a production box without a lot of problems? Will yum do that cleanly and 
> consistently without a lot of headaches? 
> 
> Whatever choice I make is going to have to last for a good while. Does 
> anyone have any advice for this situation? 
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Marc