Roger wrote:
Some people may argue they are worthless to start off with.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Billy wrote:
Its not the version number that people care about...the RHCE cert is based
on version numbers. So the big jump in version numbers makes the cert
worthless a lot faster!
Those people haven
Some people may argue they are worthless to start off with.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Billy wrote:
> Its not the version number that people care about...the RHCE cert is based
> on version numbers. So the big jump in version numbers makes the cert
> worthless a lot faster!
>
>
--
redhat-list mail
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:37:41AM +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
> Other users - seriously - let's not debate over the number hey? Who cares
> what it's called as long as it works?
But that's the point, from my view. I *always* skipped the x.0's (in
fact, I skipped the x.1's as well) and reading ab
> Didn't they do something similar with RH7.3? I mean, didn't it jump
> from 7.3 to 8.0? I seem to remember a jump of a few ordinals to 8.0.
> But I could be wrong, can someone correct me?
Yes, that is correct. It usually happend that way though. I remember 5.0,
5.1, 5.2 then jump to 6.0, 6.1, 6
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 15:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Red Hat generally only bumps up the main version number due to binary
> icompatibilities. That being said, they could do this on a whim if they
> like. It is merely a ploy to get people to go use their "Advanced" line of
> products if they w
Red Hat generally only bumps up the main version number due to binary
icompatibilities. That being said, they could do this on a whim if they
like. It is merely a ploy to get people to go use their "Advanced" line of
products if they want product stability. A great way to aggrevate their
RHCE's
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 14:31, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:10:35PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
> > Ed Wilts wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:48:24PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
> > >
> > >>Red Hat 9 What happened to 8.1?
> > >
> > > Who says there should have been an 8.1?
Didn't they do something similar with RH7.3? I mean, didn't it jump
from 7.3 to 8.0? I seem to remember a jump of a few ordinals to 8.0.
But I could be wrong, can someone correct me?
--
J. Tim Willis
“A Computer without Windows is like a chocolate cake without mustard.”
--
redhat-list maili
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:10:35PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
> Ed Wilts wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:48:24PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
> >
> >>Red Hat 9 What happened to 8.1?
> >
> > Who says there should have been an 8.1? Just because a whole bunch of
> > people assumed the next v
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:26, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:48:24PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
> > Red Hat 9 What happened to 8.1?
>
> Who says there should have been an 8.1? Just because a whole bunch of
> people assumed the next version number was going to be 8.1 doesn't make
Ed Wilts wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:48:24PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
Red Hat 9 What happened to 8.1?
Who says there should have been an 8.1? Just because a whole bunch of
people assumed the next version number was going to be 8.1 doesn't make
it so. Red Hat doesn't pre-announce ve
:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early]
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:48:24PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
> Red Hat 9 What happened to 8.1?
Who says there should have been an 8.1? Just because a whole bunch of
people assumed the next vers
quot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early]
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:01:50 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I doubt it...
>
> http://www.redhat.com/mktg/rh9iso/
So, does anyone know what's new/ improved/ changed from 8?
Jody
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:48:24PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
> Red Hat 9 What happened to 8.1?
Who says there should have been an 8.1? Just because a whole bunch of
people assumed the next version number was going to be 8.1 doesn't make
it so. Red Hat doesn't pre-announce version numbers, a
Or more specifically from 8.1 ??
I can't see there being 0.9 versions worth of changes since 8.1 (which
wasn't even released).
This reeks of marketing spin. *sigh* That really makes me sad to see RH
pulling a slimey microsoft move. I remember when they (m$) released Visual J
and it STARTED at v6
> I doubt it...
>
> http://www.redhat.com/mktg/rh9iso/
So, does anyone know what's new/ improved/ changed from 8?
Jody
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
On 3/24/03 11:39 AM, "Ric Tibbetts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spit this out onto my
computer screen:
> It has to be a typo.
>
> Ric
>
And if it is not a typo - are these release ISO's? Or a beta of some kind?
Dustin
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.
I doubt it...
http://www.redhat.com/mktg/rh9iso/
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ric Tibbetts
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the
It has to be a typo.
Ric
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:48:24PM -0600, John Nichel wrote:
> Red Hat 9 What happened to 8.1?
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:18:21 -
> From: "Red Hat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was just thinking the exact same thing!?
As John Stewart says on the daily show "Whhh?"
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Nichel
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:48 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Fwd:
20 matches
Mail list logo
