On Monday 10 February 2003 05:14 pm, Miark wrote: > I would expect that a x.1 version of something would be the x.0 > version with tweaks and updates. 9.1, however, seems a wholly new > beast, with a whole new kernel, new installer, kde 3.1, and so on. > > So why is this new version 9.1 and not 10.0? > > Miark
Well did you see a new glibc? Binaries under 9.1 are compatible with 9.0 and more or less vice-versa. And the kernel has not changed--we are still on 2.4 series FYI 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 => RH Code PLUS. & Kernel 2.0.3x 6.0, 6.1(aka 6.5) => Code divergence, Kernel 2.2 7.0, 7.1 => Graphic Installer, Kernel 2.2 KDE with many attractive themes. 7.1 introduced consolidated menu structure across desktops. 7.2 => Kernel 2.2 with udma100 backported from 2.3, Menu editor, KDE 1.99/2.0 8.0,8.1,8.2 => Compiler changed from egcs to gcc 2.96 patched. glibc changed. rpms binary incompatible with 7.x versions, kernel 2.4 Supermount rewritten many times for the new kernel. devfs introduced. 9.0=>KDE 3.0, yet another glibc version. Binary incompatibility with 8.x versions except for staticly linked packages. 9.1=>KDE 3.1 New look on installer and change in organization Why is x.1 bleeding edge? If you want stable, buy Corporate Server with its 12-month development cycle. x.0 x.1 x.2 are all to some extent bleeding edge. But if you have used 9.1 Beta3, you may have already discovered that bleeding edge can send a wind from your terminal screen to blow your hair back. I wish releases were as nice as that beta. Civileme
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
