Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AdmiralAsshat 2025 days ago
Previous product I worked on required a supported RHEL/CentOS environment on which to install our product. Even with the six years or so of support, our customers would piss and moan every time we'd tell them that RHEL/Centos5 was hitting EOL and they'd need to upgrade their servers to Centos 6 or 7 to stay supported. Most of them wouldn't even entertain the idea of "upgrading": for them, business as usual was holding on to the existing OS as long as possible, then buying an entirely new server with the latest-greatest CentOS release freshly installed on it, and doing a data migration.

I can't even imagine the amount of headache we would have gotten if they needed to upgrade every two years.

1 comments

When you update often it turns out to be less work, because more gets automated and changes are smaller. This is the CI/CD proposition anyway.
Except when the update brings some kind of massive change. RHEL 6->7, for example, was when systemd became the norm, and so right around the time our customers started upgrading, I suddenly had the hot potato dropped into my lap of needing to convert 20 years' worth of our software's init.d scripts into systemd services.
Debian, Ubuntu handled those side by side for a while, surprised RH didn’t.