[quote]
kearney wrote:
I think it is funny how the people wanting a newer kernel haven't yet said what it is they want that 5.6 doesn't have :-?[/quote]
I've never been able to quite figure that out either. Personally I view point updates as a (sometimes) necessary evil. Not that Linux updates are usually that bad -- but I still have memories of the process in Windows.
Abandon Ship
Re: Abandon Ship
[quote]
RonB wrote:
[quote]
kearney wrote:
I think it is funny how the people wanting a newer kernel haven't yet said what it is they want that 5.6 doesn't have :-?[/quote]
I've never been able to quite figure that out either. Personally I view point updates as a (sometimes) necessary evil. Not that Linux updates are usually that bad -- but I still have memories of the process in Windows.[/quote]
I've been using CentOS since version 3, and I'll probably go back to it once they catch up to upstream, but one thing I needed that CentOS 5 doesn't have support for is SATA Multiplier chipsets. I ended up rolling with Fedora for that, and look forward to switching back to CentOS when things are a bit more stable.
RonB wrote:
[quote]
kearney wrote:
I think it is funny how the people wanting a newer kernel haven't yet said what it is they want that 5.6 doesn't have :-?[/quote]
I've never been able to quite figure that out either. Personally I view point updates as a (sometimes) necessary evil. Not that Linux updates are usually that bad -- but I still have memories of the process in Windows.[/quote]
I've been using CentOS since version 3, and I'll probably go back to it once they catch up to upstream, but one thing I needed that CentOS 5 doesn't have support for is SATA Multiplier chipsets. I ended up rolling with Fedora for that, and look forward to switching back to CentOS when things are a bit more stable.
-
pschaff
- Retired Moderator
- Posts: 18276
- Joined: 2006/12/13 20:15:34
- Location: Tidewater, Virginia, North America
- Contact:
Re: Abandon Ship
Welcome to the CentOS fora. Please see the recommended reading for new users (even if they have been around since CentOS-3) linked in my signature.
[quote]
smgoller wrote:
I've been using CentOS since version 3, and I'll probably go back to it once they catch up to upstream, but one thing I needed that CentOS 5 doesn't have support for is SATA Multiplier chipsets. I ended up rolling with Fedora for that, and look forward to switching back to CentOS when things are a bit more stable.[/quote]
If you've been around that long you know CentOS will support it when it comes from [url=http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General?highlight=%28TUV%29#head-d29a2b7e61ffc544973098f9dd49fe4663efba50]TUV[/url]. [url=https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=25878&forum=53&post_id=136939#forumpost136939]CentOS-6[/url] most likely has that support if it's coming anytime soon.
As far as stability, I'd expect [b]any[/b] CentOS release to be more stable than Fedora.
[quote]
smgoller wrote:
I've been using CentOS since version 3, and I'll probably go back to it once they catch up to upstream, but one thing I needed that CentOS 5 doesn't have support for is SATA Multiplier chipsets. I ended up rolling with Fedora for that, and look forward to switching back to CentOS when things are a bit more stable.[/quote]
If you've been around that long you know CentOS will support it when it comes from [url=http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General?highlight=%28TUV%29#head-d29a2b7e61ffc544973098f9dd49fe4663efba50]TUV[/url]. [url=https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=25878&forum=53&post_id=136939#forumpost136939]CentOS-6[/url] most likely has that support if it's coming anytime soon.
As far as stability, I'd expect [b]any[/b] CentOS release to be more stable than Fedora.