On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 15:15, T. Ribbrock wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:26:27AM -0800, Cliff Wells wrote: > > The things you see in the RH kernel are typically backports of features > > from the development kernel. Yes, it does make the RH kernel different, > > but not terribly special. Obviously, RH has developers (Alan Cox comes > > to mind), but they typically don't just develop for RH. They develop > > for the entire community. RH doesn't fork code. > > Fact is, they're not using the straight tarballs. Which means extra > work in Q&A, if they're doing their jobs properly. That is definitely > more than the "just distributing" you were hinting at. > As I said, basically all SRPMs from RH I've seen so far contain > RH-patches. Those patches need to be developped, tested and > maintained. That's more than just packaging.
Sure. But have you ever downloaded a vanilla Linux kernel and run RH on it? Works just fine, sometimes better. If you are concerned about RH's QA, then just do that. > But based on actual statements. Almost all discussions I've seen were > a) pointing into "probably less stable" direction and b) littered with > "I'm going to switch" statements. IMO, it would make business sense > for RH to counter this - *if* they can. Having spent enough time on usenet to know, I'll venture there's more air than substance to those "threats". What's the point of making these announcements public? If you're going to switch, then do it and the unsubscribe info is at the bottom. You know as well as I that you can never make everyone happy. People who are going to run to Mandrake or Debian (which is what I'd recommend, if you want stability at the expense of new features, although given the number of people running "debian unstable" I wonder how much people really want that) can then fill those mailing lists with complaints. It's especially funny when people who were running what they thought was 8.1 beta found out that it was going to be 9 and then started worrying about stability. They were just running the *beta* release, fer christsake! That brings up another point: x.0 releases are *not* beta (as you refer to them below). RH always has beta releases (rawhide) available on the their website. Those are for testing. x.0 is the *stable* release. Will there be bugfixes? You bet. It's still the stable release. If you are concerned about stability, ask RH to improve their beta testing program. That is more logical (and constructive) than thinking that x.2 is somehow the magical number that marks stability. > > > 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. > > > > Er, you don't patch your systems? And what was your IP address? > > <wink>. Here's a clue: *no* system has all the patches applied and > > tested until it becomes obsolete. There are *always* new patches needed > > to address bugs and security holes. The only reason someone's RH 6.2 > > system no longer gets patched is because no one is making the patches. > > Of course. But tell me: At the release date of RH 7.3, which would > have been more efficient and worth the price: Buying a RH7.[012] set and > downloading about an extra CD full of patches or buying the RH7.3 set? I'll concede that point. But consider how much it must have cost RH to have to stock the shelves with 4 different versions of 7. I suspect the lost revenue from customers who switch to some other distro won't come close to that amount. Off-the-shelf software is rapidly becoming a thing of the past anyway. Why kill a tree (and a couple of plastic things) to put *software* in a pretty box in the store when it will need to be upgraded before the shrink-wrap has hardened? We are moving into the age of broadband (or are already there, if you ask me) and RH certainly must recognize this. Perhaps a middle-of-the-road solution would be for RH to make occasional updated releases available via their website (mail-you-a-CD type) for people who don't have the bandwith for a major download. Proposing this (or some other solution) to RH is far more constructive than stamping your feet ;) > So far, I stayed with the traditionally well built x.2/x.3 releases and > ran into next to no problems - definitely less than what was to be > seen in discussions about the corresponding x.0 versions. Those, I > would have had to patch more often. Yup, I'm basically letting others > do the beta testing on the x.0 versions. I in turn put up with getting > new features later, as well as with dwindling mailing list support. > There are trade-offs either way. I prefer stepping from > "stable+maintained" to the next "stable+maintained". With RH, this > meant following the x.2 releases in the past, not the x.0's. And what exactly, was wrong with 8.0? It's far better than 7.3, if you ask me. I understand your point, I just don't subscribe to it myself. > > Then don't pay for it. As far as work, I don't see using RHN or apt as > > especially taxing. Anyone who finds typing 'apt-get upgrade' or > > clicking the little red exclamation point to be work probably costs RH > > more in support than they make from them. > > wget works just fine, thanks... ;-) I don't like automated updates, > sorry. So you wget the rpms and rpm -hUv them? How is that different than what the automated updates do? I know a lot of people do just this (in fact, I used to be one of them), but it doesn't really make a lot of sense, IMHO. If you are rebuilding src rpms or from a tarball, that's a bit different, but when you get the binary rpm (and all of its dependencies) you are, in fact, using an automated update system, only you're doing it the wrong way <wink> > As far as the paying goes: There's a reason I actually wanted > to pay, which is to support RH Same here. I choose RH because of all the distros I feel that they contribute the most back to the community. In fact, many of the other distros were once just repackaging of the current RH with some changes the packager felt were important (Mandrake, anyone? Caldera? <insert most rpm-based distros here>?). Ironically, I rarely use the CD's from the RH distros that I buy (I've been using the SGI XFS installer for some time). I should probably just start paying for RHN, since that's more in line with how I use their product. But maybe that's their intention. > - after all, I've been using their > distro for six years now. That reason is dwindling fast. It's as simple > as that. Well, as I said, you're certainly free to switch distros. It's all Linux and that's all that matters. Just be certain you'll find just as much to be unhappy about with any distro you choose. They might be different things, but they'll still be there. If they aren't, wait until the packager releases the next version and they'll introduce them. Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 x308 (800) 735-0555 x308 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
