> -Original Message-
> From: Gordon Messmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Rick Johnson wrote:
>
> > What happened to 8.1?
>
>
> Have you been running the beta? There's a whole LOT of third party
> software that ran fine of 8.0, but not on the Phoebe beta
> releases. It
> seems to b
rom: Michael Mansour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux 9 - Obsoleting RHCE's a an unprecidented
> pace
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 8.0 appears to be an odd ball much like Windows ME
> > was for Microsoft. B
> 8.0 appears to be an odd ball much like Windows ME
> was for Microsoft. But,
> I'm sure RH has a very good reason for this - they
> seem to know what they
> are doing when "controversial" things like this
> comes about.
>
> -Eric Wood
I'm using 8.0 on 3 production systems at the moment,
from
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 14:10, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
>
> > What happened to 8.1?
>
>
> Have you been running the beta? There's a whole LOT of third party
> software that ran fine of 8.0, but not on the Phoebe beta releases. It
> seems to be mostly related to the NPTL cha
Martín Marqués wrote:
I thought I had heard someone saying that Oracle was asking RedHat to
release new series with at least 18 months in between, cause they could
catch with the fast releases.
This is not good for the Oracle partner indeed.
That's what the Red Hat Enterprise Linux series is all a
Rick Johnson wrote:
What happened to 8.1?
Have you been running the beta? There's a whole LOT of third party
software that ran fine of 8.0, but not on the Phoebe beta releases. It
seems to be mostly related to the NPTL changes in the kernel and glibc,
and probably isn't something that can
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 12:47, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Red Hat wrote:
> > Dear Colleague:
> >
> > You may know that Red Hat Network is the best way to keep your
> > systems running the latest errata and always up to date. What you
> > might not know is that Red Hat Network passed the one million use
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a .0 release mainly reflects glibc
compatability. Maybe something in glibc upgraded so much that calling it
8.1 would make it be too different than normal convention.
8.0 appears to be an odd ball much like Windows ME was for Microsoft. But,
I'm sure RH has a very g
