Is RHEL5 the new XP?

For most people, it's actually CentOS5 we're talking about, as it's the most popular RHEL5 clone. And free as in "you don't need to pay a dime".

What do have in common [the clones of] RHEL5 and Windows XP SP3?

• They're already antiquated when comes to what software they provide (OK, Windows XP is much older, however how would you call GIMP 2.2 in the age of GIMP 2.6, the kernel 2.6.18 in the age of 2.6.30, and so on?).
• They're the most stable and reliable choices in their respective classes (RHEL5 is the most reliable Linux distro, and XP is the most reliable desktop OS from Microsoft).
• Nobody knows when a better choice will show up (I don't know when RHEL6 is scheduled to be born, and Windows 7 is not much more than Vista Second Edition).
• Therefore, they're the preferred fallback ("faute de mieux") solutions for too many people.

By the way, does anyone know when is RHEL6 tentatively scheduled to be released? What kernel will it have? What GNOME version? How about KDE3/KDE4? Will X.Org work reliably with Intel and ATI chips? Will ext4 be supported? Will the package management be PackageKit-based?

My personal opinion is that, given the overwhelming set of regressions in the Linux ecosystem in the last period (kernel, X.Org, KDE4), Red Hat will continue to offer Enterprise Linux 5 (5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.9.1, 5.9.2, etc.) for a long time, possibly even beyond 2014, and they will delay Enterprise Linux 6 for more than they initially wanted!

Unless they will release a non-X version of RHEL6.

RHEL6 can't be based on Fedora 9 (too buggy for the enterprise). It can't be based on Fedora 10 (it includes new technologies still to mature). As for Fedora 11… it has just been delayed for a week, as the best proof that releasing twice a year is unfeasible in a GNU/Linux system where nobody fixes bugs but they prefer to change everything all the time!

The status of RHEL6 is the best-kept IT secret of the moment.

So RHEL5 (or CentOS5 for most of you, or Scientific Linux 5, or StartCom Linux AS 5) is going to last more than initially expected. Isn't the same for Windows XP?

I am tentatively considering the pros and cons of going for CentOS5. This means I would have to accept, among other things, to go back to ext3, which I dislike since I got the passion for JFS and XFS. Then we go to the extra repos… sigh.

I have just read Dag's blog post Are there too few people who understand desktop Linux? — a fascinating reading indeed.

As for the dilemma of what clone to choose… I suppose CentOS 5.3 is the best-looking one (unless you want it to look more like 5.2).