On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:44:17AM -0800, Cliff Wells wrote: [...] > It isn't clear to me how RedHat releasing newer versions of software > faster is going to make much difference. RedHat doesn't write 99% of > the software in RH Linux. What's the difference between the user > installing the latest version of Apache or Redhat supplying it? [...]
Have you ever taken a closer look at RH's (S)RPMs (or for that matter the packages of any distributor)? At times, the differences are huge. Take e.g. the RH kernel and compare it to what you find on kernel.org. The amount of patches RH puts in is amazing. Same goes for most other packages. In fact, if what RH packages *was* exactly what's in the tarballs, the whole "Blue Curve/KDE/GNOME" discussion would never have taken place - nor the "gcc 2.96" discussion. Neither would they need to have developers on their team - which they do, fortunately. The upside of this is the backporting of bugfixes and the addition of features while keeping compatibility with older versions (which is exactly what the x.y releases were all about). This has been a quality of RH I for one learned to appreciate. The downside of this is that you need a non-trivial amount of quality assurance - if you change the software, it's your responsibility it doesn't break. Again, I refer back to all discussions around "Blue Curve" or "gcc 2.96", to name but two examples. RH has been quite good at this in the past, but mostly in the later releases of a cycle. But such Q&A takes time. Therefore, it remains to be seen if they can deliver the quality we've become used to in the x.y releases (I've used 4.2 -> 5.2 -> 6.2 -> 7.3 - all of the were good releases, some even excellent at the time). The fact that RH is keeping quiet about their intentions in this regard doesn't help, either - and it certainly doesn't help *them*, as they might potentially loose customers. [...] > Besides, if you want a point release, wait a few weeks after a new RH > release comes out, install it and apply the updates from RHN. Tada! A > point release. Right. So I have to pay for a product to which I *have* to apply tons of updates to get it to the point of quality I expected from it in the first place? I don't think so. I'm willing to spend money on x.y releases, which has all patches applied and tested - but not on a "x.0" which I have to patch myself. > What exactly is the difference between x.0 with all the updates applied > and x.1? Not much. Work and my willingness to pay for it. Cheerio, Thomas -- ==> RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-list&r=1&w=2 <== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ribbrock http://www.ribbrock.org "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
