Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 23:14, T. Ribbrock wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:13:35PM -0800, Cliff Wells wrote: 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. Kind of defeats the purpose of buying a distro, doesn't it? :-} Not at all. That's like saying that installing a newer version of apache or samba from a tarball defeats the purpose. The purpose of a distro is so that you can get a bootable machine with most everything working without a big hassle. It doesn't mean leaving it in 'pristine' condition. The difference between starting with a distro and rolling a few of your own packages (including the kernel) and starting from scratch is remarkable. Take a look at the directions for one of the BYO linux distros. While it would certainly be.. er, a learning experience, I think I'd rather hit myself in the head with a 40+ floppy install of SCO Openswerver 3.0. Okay, maybe not, but you see my point ;) Over the past two years, RH lost quite a lot of that appeal. In my eyes, they cared less and less for the ordinary user - the folks they started off with. It's little things, like bad support for the mailing lists, changes in release policies, etc. I myself am in two minds about this: On the one hand, I understand that they're a commercial entitiy, which needs to survive. On the other hand, I'm missing the idealism (for lack of better word) from the early times. Granted. But this is probably a stage nearly every company goes through as they go from small to large, enter new markets, get a broader base of customers, etc. It isn't uncommon for early adopters to feel alienated as the tides change. I just don't think you'll find it much different elsewhere. I myself have cursed RH at various times (and will again, no doubt, probably before lunch), but for me the their idealism hasn't changed in one important aspect: they give back to the community. rpm can screw me, they can f* up my python install, and all that, but I can't deny their commitment to the community (the Linux development community, that is). To me that far outweighs any occasional packaging snafu on their part. What I'm driving at: Making such statements publicly is one way of getting a discussion going - and maybe even a way to influence things. Yes, I know about the vote with your Euros thing, but that's not the same. I'll grant this as well. I was just being snippy. [...] Debian (which is what I'd recommend, if you want stability at the expense of new features, ...) Well, RH's balance in that regard was perfect for me in the past, that's what I liked about them. And I'm not quite ready for the Debian bigots... donning asbestos underware :-) Ah, some of them are nice people, if a bit misguided puts one leg in (it's ironic anyway, as I'm running OpenBSD as well...) Speaking of bigots... puts other leg in and hopes a ;) stops the flames I'm not going to argue there - you do have a point. I myself was waiting for 8.2... ;-) So now you'll wait for 10? wink There's nothing magic about it. x.0 *was* a beta release for me (and for others). Those were the releases were the new stuff hit public scrutiny and the biggest bugs and problems were shaken out. It's been that way for at least the time I'm using RH. Yes, there is a beta program. Yes, those bugs *should* be found during that time. In reality, that's not the way it works - the x.0 will always have more people trying it out (and hence more eyes watching it) than any real beta release before it and I honestly cannot see a way to improve this - nor is RH the only company suffering from this problem. RH just was honest enough to admit the faults in the first releases and follow it up with improved, compatible releases. I'd chalk it up to protecting their reputation rather than honesty. I don't think they'll change much in that regard. They've always made it clear that they consider their name to be their most valuable asset (which is why they've never tried the Caldera tactics of not GPL'ing portions of their code). I seriously doubt they'll let their name get drug down with half-ass releases. I admit that there might be some hitches to their new scheme that either 1) they haven't worked out or 2) they haven't told us of their solution to. Either way, I'm willing to give them a shot at it. 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. the age of broadband is still a some way off. It's still far too expensive and in fact not reachable for many (think outside USA, or even outside the Western
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
Hi Brad, Yes, that would be good, but as an application developer we can't dictate what platform the users will use. The majority of users use the standard Redhat Linux. This will continue, I think, and so we will need to support rapidly changing ABI's of these systems. Customers will get difficulties as they will not be able to just install standard binary applications and Linux will start to get a bad name as it will be seen as unstable. It seems that RedHat want to make the majority of its current users beta testers for its other products. At the moment, in turn for users and developers providing bug testing and fixes, RedHat provides a reasonably stable platform for all users. I am concerned that this partnership which has benifited RedHat, RedHat users and Linux in general may be lost. Terry Sites, Brad wrote: Terry, If you need stable releases to develop against, I suggest you look at developing for RedHat Enterprise Linux Advanced Server. They have made this version to be a stable platform with a longer development cycle for this very purpose. RedHat has done a good job in making the distinction between the two product lines (in my opinion). The redistributable release is going to be bleeding edge and probably a test-bed for functions and features that will find their way into the EL line of products once they become stable. Just my thoughts. Brad Sites Systems Administrator Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance -Original Message- From: Terry Barnaby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ? Hi, There is obviously a trade off between compatibility and progress. I am one that thought the RedHat tradeoff level was about right. There was always the Redhat Raw Hide for more radical developments. As an application developer we have got used to supporting applications on RedHat with releases such as 7.0, 7.1, 7.2. One of the major problems with Linux (we have been using/supporting Linux for many years) is the frequent changing of basic binary compatibility. This is a nightmare to us application developers. The past RedHat distributions, being based on an around yearly major update with a major version number change to signify this suited us quite well, helping us cope with Lunux evolution. We always stayed clear of x.0 releases as we needed stability over new features. May I ask: 1. Why was this change to a system of releases, that appeared to be working well, made ? 2. Did RedHat talk over this issue with customers and other Linux users prior to changing ? This seems to have come out of the blue ... 3. Is there information, on the RedHat website, as to RedHat's new version policy ? 4. I presume that RedHat 9 will not conform to the Linux Standard Base ? 5. Is this change there to force all RedHat Linux users, both business and home, that need a platform that its stable and productive to purchase one of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages ? One of the reasons we use and support RedHat is due to the consistent and stable nature of the releases. If this is going to change we, and I suspect others, will need to rethink which distribution to use and support ... It may be that RedHat is no longer interested in non enterprise users. If so this would, I believe, be a mistake. Linux and RedHat has been built with the expertise and testing of the huge number of non-enterprise users. If those users/developers move to another Linux distribution RedHat will lose a great deal ... It is essential for any company to communicate well with its customers, especially if a major change to the product line is going to be made, if not customers will become confused, disillusioned and disappear Terry Eric Wood wrote: I think that's good! We've catered to ancient programs for too long via compatibility. It's time to see what software package will have a pulse. It's time to see what dies and what is born. -eric wood From: Jeff Bearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind that the consumer RHL is going to be a lot more aggressive with new stuff, so they may in fact break binary compatibility on each release. -- Dr Terry Barnaby BEAM Ltd Phone: +44 1454 324512 Northavon Business Center, Dean Rd Fax: +44 1454 313172 Yate, Bristol, BS37 5NH, UK Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.beam.ltd.uk BEAM for: Visually Impaired X-Terminals, Parallel Processing, Software Tandems are twice the fun ! -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- Dr Terry Barnaby BEAM Ltd Phone: +44 1454 324512 Northavon Business Center, Dean Rd Fax: +44 1454 313172 Yate, Bristol, BS37 5NH, UK Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.beam.ltd.uk BEAM for: Visually Impaired X-Terminals
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:37:53AM -0700, Ryan McDougall wrote: Please provide to me the source of your assertion that there will be no more point releases, because I have seen no such statement by Redhat. They're not saying it with so many words, but this makes me wary: quote In the past, Red Hat has ensured compatibility and supportability within product families. With the recent introduction of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and that family of products, we are now able to integrate stable and mature new technology developments as they are released instead of having to delay their incorporation until the next major release, following a few point releases. The accelerated numbering reflects Red Hat's move to speed the adoption of open-source technology. /quote Taken from: http://www.redhat.com/advice/ The above points to faster release cycles for ordinary Red Hat = less stability than what we're used to. If that's NOT the case, I'd expect RH to come out NOW and provide sufficient statements to that regards, ESPECIALLY seeing the way the discussions are going in various forums at the moment. Cheerio, Thomas -- == RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-listr=1w=2 == - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
T. Ribbrock wrote: On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:50:36PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: Who said that there will be less emphasis on stability? Red Hat Linux hasn't become a semi-annual printing of Rawhide... No. But in the past, the x.0 releases have *never* reached the same stability level as the later x.2 releases. By scrapping the point releases and putting more emphasis on bring new features sooner, one can expect that stability will suffer. You might expect that. I, however, expect a more steady evolution, rather than huge leaps every couple of years. Most of the problems brought on by a .0 release was the result of wide spread changes. The point releases had a very small number of changes, by comparison, and so improved stability of the platform. The current plan is somewhere in the middle. I don't expect to see such sweeping changes in the distribution anymore, so I think it's reasonable to hope for much better releases than ever happened before. It's really too early to say a whole lot about Shrike, but it really feels like an excellent release. It's all that I'd hoped for in Red Hat Linux, and that's not impared by the fact that it's 9 instead of 8.1 (including the changes made that would not have been put in to an 8.1 release). -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 00:47, T. Ribbrock wrote: The above points to faster release cycles for ordinary Red Hat = less stability than what we're used to. This statement (faster release cycles equals less stability) is unsupported by any statement anyone has made yet. Which part do you expect to be unstable? The kernel? I've run development kernels (1.1.x, 1.3.x, etc) on servers (needed the hardware support) and didn't have problems. Are you referring to applications? XFree86? 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? It's the same software. If you have problems with a particular package on a new RH release, go get the tarball or rpm of a prior version and install it yourself. 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. What exactly is the difference between x.0 with all the updates applied and x.1? Not much. -- 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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 00:23, Terry Barnaby wrote: Hi Brad, Yes, that would be good, but as an application developer we can't dictate what platform the users will use. The majority of users use the standard Redhat Linux. This will continue, I think, and so we will need to support rapidly changing ABI's of these systems. Customers will get difficulties as they will not be able to just install standard binary applications and Linux will start to get a bad name as it will be seen as unstable. rpmbuild --rebuild --arch myarch somerpm.src.rpm. Maybe this should be the official way of distributing applications anyway. There's no reason RHN couldn't download the src rpm and rebuild it on the user's system in the background. It does require having development libraries that aren't always installed, but these are merely another dependency. Not to mention you'd automatically get a build optimized for your architecture (although this is of arguable benefit). It seems that RedHat want to make the majority of its current users beta testers for its other products. At the moment, in turn for users and developers providing bug testing and fixes, RedHat provides a reasonably stable platform for all users. I am concerned that this partnership which has benifited RedHat, RedHat users and Linux in general may be lost. I don't see it. This is the Linux model. You seem to be saying that what has worked for Linux from day one isn't going to work anymore. Can you back that up? -- 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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:23:41AM -0800, Cliff Wells wrote: Maybe this should be the official way of distributing applications anyway. There's no reason RHN couldn't download the src rpm and rebuild it on the user's system in the background. It does require having development libraries that aren't always installed, but these are merely another dependency. YUCK! This is a *very* large dependency that opens a large can of worms in secure environments. I'd really hate to update a firewall or mail server from source since many of these edge servers don't have compilers for security reasons. Not only do you need the libraries that you refer to, but many compilers, autoconf, automake, and a bunch of support tools. As developers use different languages for different packages, the problem gets uglier and uglier. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
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 QA 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-listr=1w=2 == - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 09:51, Ed Wilts wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:23:41AM -0800, Cliff Wells wrote: Maybe this should be the official way of distributing applications anyway. There's no reason RHN couldn't download the src rpm and rebuild it on the user's system in the background. It does require having development libraries that aren't always installed, but these are merely another dependency. YUCK! This is a *very* large dependency that opens a large can of worms in secure environments. I'd really hate to update a firewall or mail server from source since many of these edge servers don't have compilers for security reasons. Not only do you need the libraries that you refer to, but many compilers, autoconf, automake, and a bunch of support tools. As developers use different languages for different packages, the problem gets uglier and uglier. Fine. It was just an idea wink -- 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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 10:08, T. Ribbrock wrote: 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 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. 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. Bluecurve is a theme+engine. You can get it for other distros as well. You can choose not to use it or even uninstall it from RH with no ill effects. GCC 2.96 was just a bad choice of compilers on RH's part (although they made some reasonable arguments for having chosen it). 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. Agreed. 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. I'm still not seeing the Bluecurve example, but I'll grant the GCC 2.96 problem. Still the GCC issue would perhaps indicate that RH would have been better off *following* the rest of the community rather than striking out on their own. RH has been quite good at this in the past, but mostly in the later releases of a cycle. But such QA 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. I'll agree it remains to be seen (but then what doesn't?). However, I still stand by my argument that the difference between x.0 with all updates and x.1 is minimal. Speculation about losing customers is just that: speculation. [...] 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. 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. 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. 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. I'll grant some of your arguments (regarding GCC compatibility) but let's keep it real. -- 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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:24:55PM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:08:13PM +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: [...] 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. REDHAT has definitely NOT been keeping quiet about their intentions regarding the RH 9 and RHAS release. They have been keeping quiet as far as tangible evidence goes, i.e. statements on e.g. the web site or here in the forums. [...] RHAS is the Stable release track. Customers like Oracle etc.. need a product they can certify their products with and support their products on for their customers. RH's 7.Z, 8.0 etc... release cycle was too fast for comapnies like Oracle and others so the AS product line was the answer for the corporate enterprise customer. Also made clear was that the RH N releases, (the integer releases), would not be receiving the same level of effort as AS to assure that the integer releases are stable enterprise level production environments. If what you're saying is the official RH line (are there any pointers to it?), then I stand by my statement that less stability for the ordinary releases is at least probable. Cheerio, Thomas -- == RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-listr=1w=2 == - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
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 QA, 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. [...] Bluecurve is a theme+engine. You can get it for other distros as well. As well as patches to QT and/or KDE, if I'm to believe the discussions where KDE developers were involved. Admittedly, I haven't checked - I don't use KDE, nor GNOME. [...] RH has been quite good at this in the past, but mostly in the later releases of a cycle. But such QA 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. I'll agree it remains to be seen (but then what doesn't?). However, I still stand by my argument that the difference between x.0 with all updates and x.1 is minimal. Speculation about losing customers is just that: speculation. 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. [...] 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? 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. 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. As far as the paying goes: There's a reason I actually wanted to pay, which is to support RH - after all, I've been using their distro for six years now. That reason is dwindling fast. It's as simple as that. Cheerio, Thomas -- == RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-listr=1w=2 == - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 14:58, T. Ribbrock wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:24:55PM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote: Also made clear was that the RH N releases, (the integer releases), would not be receiving the same level of effort as AS to assure that the integer releases are stable enterprise level production environments. If what you're saying is the official RH line (are there any pointers to it?), then I stand by my statement that less stability for the ordinary releases is at least probable. What isn't clear to me is how that is any different than it has been since the introduction of RHAS. 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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 12:58:38AM +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:24:55PM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:08:13PM +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: [...] 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. REDHAT has definitely NOT been keeping quiet about their intentions regarding the RH 9 and RHAS release. They have been keeping quiet as far as tangible evidence goes, i.e. statements on e.g. the web site or here in the forums. Hi Tom, I wouldn't be expecting ANY RH product statements to appear here. These forums exist only as a place for the RedHat users to use as an online discussion/mutual support area. I can't recall RH ever having posted any official announcements here. For tangible evidence: Their web site - I looked there, plugged stability into the web site search engine and... http://www.redhat.com/software/whichlinux.html A web page comparing AS against RedHat Linux (nee integer releases). On this page AS is noted to now be part of Enterprise Linux. As you read this keep in mind that they are trying to promote Enterprise Linux (AS, ES, and WS) at one end of the stability spectrum' and the Red Hat Linux (integer releases), at the other end of the stability spectrum. So the two product lines have almost opposite characteristics on the stability/usability axis. How can they promote one without bad mouthing the other? They can't. So they try to walk a fine line balancing the positive statements about each product line against need to protect the other product line from being criticized. AS = Business/Enterprise stability Integer releases = usability/latest features. [...] RHAS is the Stable release track. Customers like Oracle etc.. need a product they can certify their products with and support their products on for their customers. RH's 7.Z, 8.0 etc... release cycle was too fast for comapnies like Oracle and others so the AS product line was the answer for the corporate enterprise customer. Also made clear was that the RH N releases, (the integer releases), would not be receiving the same level of effort as AS to assure that the integer releases are stable enterprise level production environments. If what you're saying is the official RH line (are there any pointers http://www.redhat.com/software/whichlinux.html to it?), then I stand by my statement that less stability for the ordinary releases is at least probable. Actually, I think I said that, only not probable, planned. -- Jeff Kinz, Open-PC, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. [EMAIL PROTECTED] copyright 2003. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.kinz.org/policy.html. Don't forget to change your password often. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 12:58:38AM +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:24:55PM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:08:13PM +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote: [...] 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. REDHAT has definitely NOT been keeping quiet about their intentions regarding the RH 9 and RHAS release. They have been keeping quiet as far as tangible evidence goes, i.e. statements on e.g. the web site or here in the forums. http://www.redhat.com/advice -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
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 QA, 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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 16:13, Cliff Wells wrote: [Blah, blah] Just wondering, is there some sort of Arguer/bandwidth waster of the Month award or something around here? I nominate myself. BTW, nominations are now closed. -- 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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 10:25, Cliff Wells wrote: On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 16:13, Cliff Wells wrote: [Blah, blah] Just wondering, is there some sort of Arguer/bandwidth waster of the Month award or something around here? I nominate myself. BTW, nominations are now closed. -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 x308 (800) 735-0555 x308 Shit, I wanted in on that one man...damn... -- Thu Apr 3 10:30:00 EST 2003 10:30:00 up 12 days, 22:17, 3 users, load average: 0.24, 0.25, 0.15 -- |____ | kuhn media australia| | / ,, /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | |=| | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn| | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |/ ._/ || | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | |'. `\ | | |icq: 5483808 | | ;/ / | | | | | smk ) /_/| |.---.| | mobile: 0410-728-389| | ' `-`' | Berkeley, New South Wales, AU | -- linux user:267497 * MDK 9.1 * PC/Mac/Linux/Networking/Consulting machine no:194239 * RH 7.3 * Sales - Service - Support - Tutor -- ** This messages was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer ** What does not destroy me, makes me stronger. -- Nietzsche -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 16:15, T. Ribbrock wrote: 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. On the other hand, there will be more time in between releases for QA work. This could well lead to more stability, which may balance out newer packages being included. -- Bill Anderson RHCE #807302597505773 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 01:47, T. Ribbrock wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:37:53AM -0700, Ryan McDougall wrote: Please provide to me the source of your assertion that there will be no more point releases, because I have seen no such statement by Redhat. They're not saying it with so many words, but this makes me wary: quote In the past, Red Hat has ensured compatibility and supportability within product families. With the recent introduction of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and that family of products, we are now able to integrate stable and mature new technology developments as they are released instead of having to delay their incorporation until the next major release, following a few point releases. The accelerated numbering reflects Red Hat's move to speed the adoption of open-source technology. /quote Taken from: http://www.redhat.com/advice/ The above points to faster release cycles for ordinary Red Hat = less stability than what we're used to. If that's NOT the case, I'd expect RH to come out NOW and provide sufficient statements to that regards, ESPECIALLY seeing the way the discussions are going in various forums at the moment. Cheerio, Thomas -- I as a personal user would definitly enjoy more bleeding edge features from my RH, I am in favor of the implicit shift in policy. I would also be more likely to buy ES for business critical situations. My point is that I dont believe there will be large changes to the ABIs of regular RH, that quickly from 8.0 to 9.0 is just a statisical blip -- Im using 9 right now and it *feels* much faster, which may be due to the kernel patches, or the 2.2 gnome. I dont think that regular RH will somehow become a beta qualitp product, but I guess we will see in time... Cheers, Ryan -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:13:35PM -0800, Cliff Wells wrote: On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 15:15, T. Ribbrock wrote: [...] 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. Kind of defeats the purpose of buying a distro, doesn't it? :-} [switch threats] Having spent enough time on usenet to know, I'll venture there's more air than substance to those threats. Fair enough. What's the point of making these announcements public? That one is simple: Many of those who uttered such statements seemed to talk about something they cared about. I actually belong to that group. When I started with 4.1 and for quite a while after that, I actually admired RH for what they were doing. They seemed to care for their customers, they gave back to the community, they were trying to survive with a product that didn't seem to have a snowball-in-hell's chance at the time to many - things like that. I've been defending them in many discussions myself over time - and there've *been* many discussions... Over the past two years, RH lost quite a lot of that appeal. In my eyes, they cared less and less for the ordinary user - the folks they started off with. It's little things, like bad support for the mailing lists, changes in release policies, etc. I myself am in two minds about this: On the one hand, I understand that they're a commercial entitiy, which needs to survive. On the other hand, I'm missing the idealism (for lack of better word) from the early times. What I'm driving at: Making such statements publicly is one way of getting a discussion going - and maybe even a way to influence things. Yes, I know about the vote with your Euros thing, but that's not the same. [...] Debian (which is what I'd recommend, if you want stability at the expense of new features, ...) Well, RH's balance in that regard was perfect for me in the past, that's what I liked about them. And I'm not quite ready for the Debian bigots... donning asbestos underware :-) (it's ironic anyway, as I'm running OpenBSD as well...) 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! I'm not going to argue there - you do have a point. I myself was waiting for 8.2... ;-) 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. There's nothing magic about it. x.0 *was* a beta release for me (and for others). Those were the releases were the new stuff hit public scrutiny and the biggest bugs and problems were shaken out. It's been that way for at least the time I'm using RH. Yes, there is a beta program. Yes, those bugs *should* be found during that time. In reality, that's not the way it works - the x.0 will always have more people trying it out (and hence more eyes watching it) than any real beta release before it and I honestly cannot see a way to improve this - nor is RH the only company suffering from this problem. RH just was honest enough to admit the faults in the first releases and follow it up with improved, compatible releases. 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. I never said I can't see the business sense behind all this. In fact, I can. That doesn't make me like it any more, though. :-/ 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. the age of broadband is still a some way off. It's still far too expensive and in fact not reachable for many (think outside USA, or even outside the Western World (for lack of a better word). Even in Europe, there are still many, many people dialling in and many are still paying by the minute for it. Never mind lesser developped countries. Nonetheless, you do have a point. It's just too early to give up on
Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
Hi, Is it true that RedHat have abandoned their Versioning policy for Redhat Linux ? Previously all major binary changes were signified by a change in major version number and minor updates by the second .x number. Reading some of the current emails floating around it is said that Redhat will only now use integer version numbers (ie 9,10,11) etc .. Is this true ? Terry -- Dr Terry Barnaby BEAM Ltd Phone: +44 1454 324512 Northavon Business Center, Dean Rd Fax: +44 1454 313172 Yate, Bristol, BS37 5NH, UK Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.beam.ltd.uk BEAM for: Visually Impaired X-Terminals, Parallel Processing, Software Tandems are twice the fun ! -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
Keep in mind that the consumer RHL is going to be a lot more aggressive with new stuff, so they may in fact break binary compatibility on each release. On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 08:49, Martin Marques wrote: On Mar 01 Abr 2003 10:33, Terry Barnaby wrote: Hi, Is it true that RedHat have abandoned their Versioning policy for Redhat Linux ? Previously all major binary changes were signified by a change in major version number and minor updates by the second .x number. Reading some of the current emails floating around it is said that Redhat will only now use integer version numbers (ie 9,10,11) etc .. Is this true ? Yes! -- Porqu usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera, si pods usar PostgreSQL? - Martn Marqus |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica Universidad Nacional del Litoral - -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- Jeff Bearer, RHCE Webmaster, PittsburghLIVE.com -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
I think that's good! We've catered to ancient programs for too long via compatibility. It's time to see what software package will have a pulse. It's time to see what dies and what is born. -eric wood From: Jeff Bearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind that the consumer RHL is going to be a lot more aggressive with new stuff, so they may in fact break binary compatibility on each release. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
Hi, There is obviously a trade off between compatibility and progress. I am one that thought the RedHat tradeoff level was about right. There was always the Redhat Raw Hide for more radical developments. As an application developer we have got used to supporting applications on RedHat with releases such as 7.0, 7.1, 7.2. One of the major problems with Linux (we have been using/supporting Linux for many years) is the frequent changing of basic binary compatibility. This is a nightmare to us application developers. The past RedHat distributions, being based on an around yearly major update with a major version number change to signify this suited us quite well, helping us cope with Lunux evolution. We always stayed clear of x.0 releases as we needed stability over new features. May I ask: 1. Why was this change to a system of releases, that appeared to be working well, made ? 2. Did RedHat talk over this issue with customers and other Linux users prior to changing ? This seems to have come out of the blue ... 3. Is there information, on the RedHat website, as to RedHat's new version policy ? 4. I presume that RedHat 9 will not conform to the Linux Standard Base ? 5. Is this change there to force all RedHat Linux users, both business and home, that need a platform that its stable and productive to purchase one of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages ? One of the reasons we use and support RedHat is due to the consistent and stable nature of the releases. If this is going to change we, and I suspect others, will need to rethink which distribution to use and support ... It may be that RedHat is no longer interested in non enterprise users. If so this would, I believe, be a mistake. Linux and RedHat has been built with the expertise and testing of the huge number of non-enterprise users. If those users/developers move to another Linux distribution RedHat will lose a great deal ... It is essential for any company to communicate well with its customers, especially if a major change to the product line is going to be made, if not customers will become confused, disillusioned and disappear Terry Eric Wood wrote: I think that's good! We've catered to ancient programs for too long via compatibility. It's time to see what software package will have a pulse. It's time to see what dies and what is born. -eric wood From: Jeff Bearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind that the consumer RHL is going to be a lot more aggressive with new stuff, so they may in fact break binary compatibility on each release. -- Dr Terry Barnaby BEAM Ltd Phone: +44 1454 324512 Northavon Business Center, Dean Rd Fax: +44 1454 313172 Yate, Bristol, BS37 5NH, UK Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.beam.ltd.uk BEAM for: Visually Impaired X-Terminals, Parallel Processing, Software Tandems are twice the fun ! -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
Title: RE: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ? Terry, If you need stable releases to develop against, I suggest you look at developing for RedHat Enterprise Linux Advanced Server. They have made this version to be a stable platform with a longer development cycle for this very purpose. RedHat has done a good job in making the distinction between the two product lines (in my opinion). The redistributable release is going to be bleeding edge and probably a test-bed for functions and features that will find their way into the EL line of products once they become stable. Just my thoughts. Brad Sites Systems Administrator Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance -Original Message- From: Terry Barnaby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ? Hi, There is obviously a trade off between compatibility and progress. I am one that thought the RedHat tradeoff level was about right. There was always the Redhat Raw Hide for more radical developments. As an application developer we have got used to supporting applications on RedHat with releases such as 7.0, 7.1, 7.2. One of the major problems with Linux (we have been using/supporting Linux for many years) is the frequent changing of basic binary compatibility. This is a nightmare to us application developers. The past RedHat distributions, being based on an around yearly major update with a major version number change to signify this suited us quite well, helping us cope with Lunux evolution. We always stayed clear of x.0 releases as we needed stability over new features. May I ask: 1. Why was this change to a system of releases, that appeared to be working well, made ? 2. Did RedHat talk over this issue with customers and other Linux users prior to changing ? This seems to have come out of the blue ... 3. Is there information, on the RedHat website, as to RedHat's new version policy ? 4. I presume that RedHat 9 will not conform to the Linux Standard Base ? 5. Is this change there to force all RedHat Linux users, both business and home, that need a platform that its stable and productive to purchase one of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages ? One of the reasons we use and support RedHat is due to the consistent and stable nature of the releases. If this is going to change we, and I suspect others, will need to rethink which distribution to use and support ... It may be that RedHat is no longer interested in non enterprise users. If so this would, I believe, be a mistake. Linux and RedHat has been built with the expertise and testing of the huge number of non-enterprise users. If those users/developers move to another Linux distribution RedHat will lose a great deal ... It is essential for any company to communicate well with its customers, especially if a major change to the product line is going to be made, if not customers will become confused, disillusioned and disappear Terry Eric Wood wrote: I think that's good! We've catered to ancient programs for too long via compatibility. It's time to see what software package will have a pulse. It's time to see what dies and what is born. -eric wood From: Jeff Bearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind that the consumer RHL is going to be a lot more aggressive with new stuff, so they may in fact break binary compatibility on each release. -- Dr Terry Barnaby BEAM Ltd Phone: +44 1454 324512 Northavon Business Center, Dean Rd Fax: +44 1454 313172 Yate, Bristol, BS37 5NH, UK Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.beam.ltd.uk BEAM for: Visually Impaired X-Terminals, Parallel Processing, Software Tandems are twice the fun ! -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
From what I have been able to pick up from previuos discussions, it seems RH is going to split it's product line into two main lines (please tell me if my understanding is wrong): * RH for home/student/entusiast users, which will be based on this new bleeding edge like technology for Open Source software included in the distro. It will be the RH we are accustomed to. * RH for Enterprise/Corporate/Application/Server users, which will be more stable, with more proven to work software, which will have a more reasonable release cycle. It seems that RH AS, ES and WS is this approach. Product will be more expensive and will be given more support I would think. Just my 2c (as a passive observer) BR, Terry Barnaby wrote: Hi, There is obviously a trade off between compatibility and progress. I am one that thought the RedHat tradeoff level was about right. There was always the Redhat Raw Hide for more radical developments. As an application developer we have got used to supporting applications on RedHat with releases such as 7.0, 7.1, 7.2. One of the major problems with Linux (we have been using/supporting Linux for many years) is the frequent changing of basic binary compatibility. This is a nightmare to us application developers. The past RedHat distributions, being based on an around yearly major update with a major version number change to signify this suited us quite well, helping us cope with Lunux evolution. We always stayed clear of x.0 releases as we needed stability over new features. May I ask: 1. Why was this change to a system of releases, that appeared to be working well, made ? 2. Did RedHat talk over this issue with customers and other Linux users prior to changing ? This seems to have come out of the blue ... 3. Is there information, on the RedHat website, as to RedHat's new version policy ? 4. I presume that RedHat 9 will not conform to the Linux Standard Base ? 5. Is this change there to force all RedHat Linux users, both business and home, that need a platform that its stable and productive to purchase one of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages ? One of the reasons we use and support RedHat is due to the consistent and stable nature of the releases. If this is going to change we, and I suspect others, will need to rethink which distribution to use and support ... It may be that RedHat is no longer interested in non enterprise users. If so this would, I believe, be a mistake. Linux and RedHat has been built with the expertise and testing of the huge number of non-enterprise users. If those users/developers move to another Linux distribution RedHat will lose a great deal ... It is essential for any company to communicate well with its customers, especially if a major change to the product line is going to be made, if not customers will become confused, disillusioned and disappear Terry Eric Wood wrote: I think that's good! We've catered to ancient programs for too long via compatibility. It's time to see what software package will have a pulse. It's time to see what dies and what is born. -eric wood From: Jeff Bearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind that the consumer RHL is going to be a lot more aggressive with new stuff, so they may in fact break binary compatibility on each release. -- *Eduardo Silva* Wireless Network Engineer ESN 587 4664 PSTN - 91 709 4664 Mobile 600 595 219 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 06:49, Martin Marques wrote: On Mar 01 Abr 2003 10:33, Terry Barnaby wrote: Hi, Is it true that RedHat have abandoned their Versioning policy for Redhat Linux ? Previously all major binary changes were signified by a change in major version number and minor updates by the second .x number. Reading some of the current emails floating around it is said that Redhat will only now use integer version numbers (ie 9,10,11) etc .. Is this true ? Yes! No this isnt correct, I dont know where poeple get this from. Redhat ( and many other projects ) changes the major version number when the next version created binary incompatability, that is when compiled binaries wont run as-is. They did the same thing for 8.0 which had a new libc library to accomodate the new C++ ABI in the new GCC compiler. All other distros needed to do the same, and it was a necessary evil to get GCC competetive with other C++ compilers, and a godsend to C++ developers. This time Redhat has backported a number of powerful features from the 2.5.x kernels, including a new Threading implementation which essentially brings linux threading from a functional toy to enterprise class performance. The implementation is possibly better than windows2000 or even solaris, and it required a change to the user mode thread library ( in libc ), thus breaking binary compatability. Since this will eventually appear in the stable 2.6 kernel, binary providers like Sun will have to redo their binaries anyways. As for the lack of .0 in the title, this is the EXACT same thing they did with Redhat 7, and everybody then was breathlessly asking if there would be no more .x releases. Who cares its just a name. I couldnt care less if it was called Redhat 2003. Cheers, Ryan -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 07:31:27PM +0200, Eduardo Silva wrote: From what I have been able to pick up from previuos discussions, it seems RH is going to split it's product line into two main lines (please tell me if my understanding is wrong): * RH for home/student/entusiast users, which will be based on this new bleeding edge like technology for Open Source software included in the distro. It will be the RH we are accustomed to. [...] ITYM: It will *not* be the RH we are accustomed to. Less emphasis on stability, no point releases - that's definitely not the RH I'm accustomed to... Cheerio, Thomas -- == RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-listr=1w=2 == - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 07:53, T. Ribbrock wrote: On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 07:31:27PM +0200, Eduardo Silva wrote: From what I have been able to pick up from previuos discussions, it seems RH is going to split it's product line into two main lines (please tell me if my understanding is wrong): * RH for home/student/entusiast users, which will be based on this new bleeding edge like technology for Open Source software included in the distro. It will be the RH we are accustomed to. [...] ITYM: It will *not* be the RH we are accustomed to. Less emphasis on stability, no point releases - that's definitely not the RH I'm accustomed to... Cheerio, Thomas Mandrake don't sound that bad nowadays, ya reckon? -- Wed Apr 2 08:00:00 EST 2003 08:00:00 up 11 days, 19:47, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.08, 0.12 -- |____ | kuhn media australia| | / ,, /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | |=| | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn| | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |/ ._/ || | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | |'. `\ | | |icq: 5483808 | | ;/ / | | | | | smk ) /_/| |.---.| | mobile: 0410-728-389| | ' `-`' | Berkeley, New South Wales, AU | -- linux user:267497 * MDK 9.1 * PC/Mac/Linux/Networking/Consulting machine no:194239 * RH 7.3 * Sales - Service - Support - Tutor -- ** This messages was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer ** Any vase dropped in a tall grass meadow will invariably land on a rock. The number of rocks in the field is irrelevant. -- The Breakability Factor of Glass and Porcelain -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, T. Ribbrock wrote: * RH for home/student/entusiast users, which will be based on this new bleeding edge like technology for Open Source software included in the distro. It will be the RH we are accustomed to. [...] ITYM: It will *not* be the RH we are accustomed to. Less emphasis on stability, no point releases - that's definitely not the RH I'm accustomed to... On the money. I'm a long time Redhat supporter, frankly this new direction sounds like a very bad thing. As a company, your choice is either: a) The still free version, with less testing, less focus on stability and less Redhat resources directed at it. b) The Pay version, which will be well supported, built with stability in mind and become more outdated than Debian stable ever thought about. Neither choice is for me. It's not a question of money, either. Neither branch sounds like the Redhat I want to admin and use. Time will tell I guess. Bill Carlson -- Systems Administrator[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Anything is possible, Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/ | given time and money. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics | Opinions are mine, not my employer's. | -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:03:07AM +1000, Stephen Kuhn wrote: Mandrake don't sound that bad nowadays, ya reckon? Downloaded 9.1 the other day... I'll install on a test box over the next few days. I'm curious... Cheerio, Thomas -- == RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-listr=1w=2 == - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
[snip] Thomas Mandrake don't sound that bad nowadays, ya reckon? -- [snip] Reckon and reason try: wget ftp://ftp.cs.ucr.edu/pub/mirrors/mandrake/Mandrake/iso/* -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
T. Ribbrock wrote: ITYM: It will *not* be the RH we are accustomed to. Less emphasis on stability, no point releases - that's definitely not the RH I'm accustomed to... Who said that there will be less emphasis on stability? Red Hat Linux hasn't become a semi-annual printing of Rawhide... Red Hat has simply divided their products into something that can please everyone: one line that has a stable application interface (that's not the same thing as a stable system), and a second line that releases the state of the art, stable software. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:50:36PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: T. Ribbrock wrote: ITYM: It will *not* be the RH we are accustomed to. Less emphasis on stability, no point releases - that's definitely not the RH I'm accustomed to... Who said that there will be less emphasis on stability? Red Hat Linux hasn't become a semi-annual printing of Rawhide... No. But in the past, the x.0 releases have *never* reached the same stability level as the later x.2 releases. By scrapping the point releases and putting more emphasis on bring new features sooner, one can expect that stability will suffer. Especially, as I do not expect RH's QA to put as much effort in the free version as they do into the Enterprise version. They never managed to get the x.0 releases right (i.e. to what the point releases were) on first try, they won't manage to do so now. Cheerio, Thomas -- == RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-listr=1w=2 == - Thomas Ribbrockhttp://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
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 23:13, T. Ribbrock wrote: On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:50:36PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: T. Ribbrock wrote: ITYM: It will *not* be the RH we are accustomed to. Less emphasis on stability, no point releases - that's definitely not the RH I'm accustomed to... Who said that there will be less emphasis on stability? Red Hat Linux hasn't become a semi-annual printing of Rawhide... No. But in the past, the x.0 releases have *never* reached the same stability level as the later x.2 releases. By scrapping the point releases and putting more emphasis on bring new features sooner, one can expect that stability will suffer. Especially, as I do not expect RH's QA to put as much effort in the free version as they do into the Enterprise version. They never managed to get the x.0 releases right (i.e. to what the point releases were) on first try, they won't manage to do so now. Cheerio, Thomas Please provide to me the source of your assertion that there will be no more point releases, because I have seen no such statement by Redhat. Are you guessing based on the lack of a point at the end of the title? Redhat did the SAME thing with Redhat 7. If the stability is going to suffer, itll be the same way that Mandrake, Suse, and companys' stability has always suffered, because redhat is not promising anyhting more than keeping up with the above joneses. Please try to refrain from fuding. Cheers, Ryan -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Redhat 9 not 9.0 ?
On Mar 01 Abr 2003 10:33, Terry Barnaby wrote: Hi, Is it true that RedHat have abandoned their Versioning policy for Redhat Linux ? Previously all major binary changes were signified by a change in major version number and minor updates by the second .x number. Reading some of the current emails floating around it is said that Redhat will only now use integer version numbers (ie 9,10,11) etc .. Is this true ? Yes! -- Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera, si podés usar PostgreSQL? - Martín Marqués |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica Universidad Nacional del Litoral - -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
