On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 21:04, Jurgen Botz wrote: > Actually I would call it a "well known superstition". > > It may have been true historically that RedHat's .0 release were > often buggier than, say, their .1 or .2 releases, but that was > due to a combination of RedHat's change-control policies and > dumb luck. Personally I thought 8.0 was no more buggy than 7.3, > actually, at least on servers where the UI changes were irrelevant. > Seemed pretty solid, actually. > > A Linux distro is an agglomeration of a large number of Open Source > and Free software packages, all evolving at different rates and > getting less (and more) buggy at different rates. Yet to combine > them into something that works well together you often /have/ to > upgrade individual packages that you'd rather leave alone, even > to less stable newer versions. This stuff is /hard/. > > I believe that how well a given release worked depended much more > on what you were using it for than the version number. Sure, if > the kernel went to a new major version, which usually happened in > a .0 release, then the overall chances of problems are greater for > more types of uses. But note that neither 8.0 nor "9" have a new > kernel major version. > > RedHat is changing the way their numbering their releases. Good > time to get over your superstition. ;-)
*clap*clap*clap* Exactly what I was going to say, but much better worded. Well said! - jck -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
