CentOS - Aug 2010 - what people really mean when they say they're running "5.3"?

more a terminology usage question than anything else, but in a
couple of weeks, i'll be teaching the first of a few sessions on RHEL
admin and, unsurprisingly, i'll be using centos (as i've done in the
past).

  when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL
that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily
install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something
and i'll have my contact look into it:  if people *initially* install
5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new
releases come out?

  obviously, i have to ask my contact to verify what the client has
been doing all this time but, in general, what's the normal behaviour
for people running centos/rhel?  and is there a way to examine an
install to see how updated it's been since that original installation?

  i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that
they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more
appropriate choice.  thanks for any tips.

rday

-- 

=======================================================================Robert P.
J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

        Top-notch, inexpensive online Linux/OSS/kernel courses
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at
crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
:
>
> ?when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL
> that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily
> install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something
> and i'll have my contact look into it: ?if people *initially* install
> 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new
> releases come out?
>
Terminology:  generally an upgrade refers to moving from one major
release to another, whereas an update is moving forward to the newest
sub-release.  I.e., CentOS 5.5 -> CentOS 6.0 will be an upgrade (and
not recommended as an upgrade per se), whereas CentOS 5.3 -> CentOS
5.5 is an update.
> ?obviously, i have to ask my contact to verify what the client has
> been doing all this time but, in general, what's the normal behaviour
> for people running centos/rhel? ?and is there a way to examine an
> install to see how updated it's been since that original installation?
>
Check /etc/redhat-release; also uname -a if you know which kernel to look for.
> ?i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that
> they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more
> appropriate choice. ?thanks for any tips.
>
They're both CentOS 5.  The differences are mainly (but not
exclusively) in security enhancements, upgrades to applications (like
Firefox or OO) and the like.  I would check to be sure if you think it
will make that much difference (and it might - 5.3 is what, a year old
now?).

HTH

Mark

At Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:11:35 -0400 (EDT) CentOS mailing list <centos at
centos.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>   more a terminology usage question than anything else, but in a
> couple of weeks, i'll be teaching the first of a few sessions on RHEL
> admin and, unsurprisingly, i'll be using centos (as i've done in
the
> past).
> 
>   when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL
> that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily
> install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something
> and i'll have my contact look into it:  if people *initially* install
> 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new
> releases come out?
Depends.  Most people do update as new updates come out. Doing 'yum
update' regularly will update to newer point releases automagically. 
Some people (for various reasons) don't regularly update their systems.

Look in /etc/issue
> 
>   obviously, i have to ask my contact to verify what the client has
> been doing all this time but, in general, what's the normal behaviour
> for people running centos/rhel?  and is there a way to examine an
> install to see how updated it's been since that original installation?
> 
>   i just don't want to teach off of 5.3, only to find out later that
> they've been keeping up to date and 5.5 would have been a more
> appropriate choice.  thanks for any tips.
On a certain level there really isn't much difference from a general
admin POV -- it does not really make sense to go into a certain level of
detail (like specific version numbers). Basic functionallity is not
going to change from point version to point version.
> 
> rday
> 
-- 
Robert Heller             -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
Deepwoods Software        -- Linux Installation and Administration
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
heller at deepsoft.com       -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk

On 08/08/10 9:11 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>    when i asked the organizer to identify the specific version of RHEL
> that was being used at the client site, i was told 5.3 so i can easily
> install 5.3 on the classroom machines, but i'm curious about something
> and i'll have my contact look into it:  if people *initially* install
> 5.3, is it standard behaviour to still regularly upgrade as new
> releases come out?
sadly, I find far too many people who installed RHEL x.y, but don't have 
an RHN subscription so they NEVER UPDATE THE SYSTEM.