At 09:33 PM 3/24/2003 -0600, you wrote:
IMHO a distro-neutral certification is a computing science degree. [...]
Perhaps I'm showing my bias but I don't like *any* certifications. Show
me somebody who's got the theory and the braincells and I'll teach him
the syntax. If you know what you're
Edward Dekkers wrote:
Seriously, if it is not a 9.0, that would imply there will be no 9.1?
Does this represent a change to just 9 - 10 - 11 - 12?
No. apparently - there will be an 9 SE, then service pack 1, 2, 3 etc.
(grins and ducks)
Regards,
i was thinking in the lines of 9 ME, 9 XP, 2001
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 10:09, Bill Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:39, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:52:39AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
I surely have my systems on 7.3, and was waiting for 8.1 to come out.
I don't know if I will switch to 9.0.
If you evaluated
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:40, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:52:02PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
. it's *still* not clear why the jump to 9.
Frankly, they don't have to tell you why the name or number anything the
way they do. They didn't ask for my opinion either :-)
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:56:59 -0500
Ben Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of my question was not to start a debate about the AS SRPM's and Redhat
being gracious enough to provide them, but rather how to go about building the CD's
(binaries) from them or any other version's
Cliff Wells wrote:
Well, I for one would like to know exactly why it's called Red Hat.
Is this some sort of communist plot? Their logo *does* look rather
cloak-and-dagger.
Maybe they should change their versioning scheme to colors: redhat,
bluehat, greenhat, aquahat. That wouldn't seem as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26 Mar 2003 13:03:39 -0800, Cliff Wells wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:40, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:52:02PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
. it's *still* not clear why the jump to 9.
Frankly, they don't have to
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 17:07, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On 26 Mar 2003 13:03:39 -0800, Cliff Wells wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:40, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:52:02PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
. it's *still* not clear why the jump to 9.
Frankly, they
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 17:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:29:48 +1100
Stephen Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right On to that, Stephen!
!-
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:52, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
this whole thing was really poorly done.
rday
Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away by
the
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 17:41, Ed Wilts wrote:
[...]
Wow. Red Hat bumped the version number from the expected 8.1 to 9 and
now you're saying people will stop suggesting Red Hat? A disgruntled
user base that simply goes
Red Hat Linux 8.x/9.x... is now considered by RH as a bleeding-edge
operating system for consumer use, mainly targeted towards home users,
small business and enthusiasts.
As a significant percentage of Red Hat's revenue is coming from Advanced
Server (Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS), they are trying
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 - 9.0 as a rush deal, and as a
result be more likely to
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 09:30:00PM +1100, Roger wrote:
I had a number of servers running 6.2/7.2/7.3, but as 7.3 won't be
supported after 31-Dec-03 I had to decide what version I was going to
run. Like many people, I don't want phone/email support from Red Hat,
just the errata packages for
: Re: RH 9: ok, so i overreacted ... but i'm still miffed
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:52:39AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
I surely have my systems on 7.3, and was waiting for 8.1 to come
out. I don't know if I will switch to 9.0.
If you evaluated Phoebe and liked it, why would 9 not suit your
Bill Anderson wrote:
Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 - 9.0 as a rush deal, and as a
result be more likely to avoid 9.0. If you avoided 8.0 due to it being a
Ed Wilts wrote:
Let's step back and put it all into perspective. Red Hat sent out an
e-mail via chtah.com announcing Red Hat Linux 9, when it would be
generally available, how to get it early, and suddenly everybody's so
annoyed they're jumping distributions? Take a deep breath, pop a valium
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
Roger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
SRPMS. I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 on as many
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:39, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:52:39AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
I surely have my systems on 7.3, and was waiting for 8.1 to come out.
I don't know if I will switch to 9.0.
If you evaluated Phoebe and liked it, why would 9 not suit your needs?
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:30, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:09:02AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 - 9.0 as a
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 08:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
Bill Anderson wrote:
Given the number of people who avoid X.0 releases, waiting instead for
X.[1,2,3] releases, I would not be suprised to see a slower adoption
rate. Some maye even see the 8.0 - 9.0 as a rush deal, and as a
result be
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 01:20 pm, Bill Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 08:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
snip
Allow me to pass along an official correction from an insider - this is
Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
compatability was maintained.
-Rick
And
Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
Allow me to pass along an official correction from an insider - this is
Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
compatability was maintained.
[...]
From the link here (posted on this list earlier):
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:00:12AM -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
Allow me to pass along an official correction from an insider - this is
Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
compatability was maintained.
From the link here (posted on this list
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 13:00, Rick Johnson wrote:
Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
Allow me to pass along an official correction from an insider - this is
Red Hat 9, not Red Hat 9.0. Surely it would be 8.1 if binary
compatability was maintained.
[...]
From the link here (posted on this list
Ed Wilts wrote:
Does Red Hat want people to go to Enterprise Linux? Sure, that's where
the revenue is. Without the redistributable line, however, Red Hat
would have to do their own QA on every product that they don't even
write, and they probably decided that shipping and supporting a free
Ben Russo said:
If you take a RedHat 7.2 install, (the base, without the errata) and then
download the
SRPMS for RedHat Enterprise AS, you will find that there are only a few
that are different,
from then on all you have to do is rpmbuild the errata when they come out.
You can have a 5
nate wrote:
Ben Russo said:
If you take a RedHat 7.2 install, (the base, without the errata) and then
download the
SRPMS for RedHat Enterprise AS, you will find that there are only a few
that are different,
from then on all you have to do is rpmbuild the errata when they come out.
You can
Steve wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
Roger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
and have a near automated process for building the errata RPMS from the
SRPMS. I can install my custom built version of RHAS 2.1 on
Ben Russo said:
The BINARY RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have a
Redhat AS
RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL)
copyrighted or licensed
or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.
yes but note on that errata site, the SOURCE
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 02:47:33PM -0800, nate wrote:
curious, does redhat provide the erratta updates to the public? from what
I have seen they do not, so it would be up to the end user to find the
patch patch manually. Not that they are under any obligation to provide
such information, from
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:30:17PM -0500, Ben Russo wrote:
The BINARY RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have
a Redhat AS
RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL)
copyrighted or licensed
or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.
What's the point in upgrading if you don't need to? My server still
runs 6.2, and has no need for an upgrade.
As long as you keep up the security updates after RedHat drops the automated
ones, I have no problem with that.
Regards,
---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L
Ben Russo said:
The BINARY RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have a
Redhat AS
RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL)
copyrighted or licensed
or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.
nate wrote:
yes but note on that errata site,
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:37:19 -0500
Ben Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:30:00 +1100 (EST)
Roger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
So I built my own version of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 from the SRPMS
and have a near automated process for building
Seriously, if it is not a 9.0, that would imply there will be no 9.1?
Does this represent a change to just 9 - 10 - 11 - 12?
No. apparently - there will be an 9 SE, then service pack 1, 2, 3 etc.
(grins and ducks)
Regards,
---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L
--
The purpose of my question was not to start a debate about the AS SRPM's and Redhat being gracious enough to provide them, but rather how to go about building the CD's (binaries) from them or any other version's SRPM's. It seems that you would need a like system to build from or they would not
ok, so it seems that that first mailing to the RH list
was legit after all, so i'm left looking a little sheepish.
but i'm still somewhat peeved about how this was done --
unspeakably clumsily.
that initial posting was more confusing than anything else.
rather than being even remotely
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:52, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
this whole thing was really poorly done.
rday
Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away by
the whole new direction that RedHat has gone in. Sadly, after nearly
ten years of sticking to RedHat, I'm going to have
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:52:02PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
ok, so it seems that that first mailing to the RH list
was legit after all, so i'm left looking a little sheepish.
but i'm still somewhat peeved about how this was done --
unspeakably clumsily.
This has been brought to their
While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
tactics much like this. I used Caldera back in the day and loved it. But
they didn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:52:02 -0500 (EST), Robert P. J. Day wrote:
and, more to the point, that posting was pure spam. it
provided no information, answered no questions -- just
announced RHN for red hat 9, and click here to join
and give us
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:29:48AM +1100, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
Yet another reason why my business, and myself are being pushed away by
the whole new direction that RedHat has gone in. Sadly, after nearly
ten years of sticking to RedHat, I'm going to have to divert my
interests to another
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:33:07PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
While I would agree with what most have been saying, namely that RH can
do whatever they damn well pleases, I don't necessarily like the trend.
Caldera has consistently alienated the Linux community starting with
tactics much like this.
That's a perspective and I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going
to stop using RH. All I am suggesting is that this appears to be a
step, or perhaps a trend. Perhaps one day they will become something I
disagree with, but right now I just don't have a good feeling about it.
I'm not,
I disagree, I think there are several valid reasons to be annoyed by Red
Hat's latest move. Most of which have to do with running Red Hat in an
enterprise environment.
Why should third parties develop for an ever changing platform? Already
it's hard enough to convince them that there is a large
I see your point and it was kind of my point. This appears to be a step
in the wrong direction. I'm with you, if more of this type of unusual
behavior occurs, it will only hurt them. As for the RHCE, I'm going for
the LPI. I think being neutral is the way to go for now, but things can
change. I
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:35:34PM -0500, Jared Brick wrote:
I disagree, I think there are several valid reasons to be annoyed by Red
Hat's latest move. Most of which have to do with running Red Hat in an
enterprise environment.
In an enterprise environment, Red Hat is targeting Red Hat
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:13:21PM -0500, Joe Polk wrote:
As for the RHCE, I'm going for
the LPI. I think being neutral is the way to go for now, but things can
change. I hope not, I am all for distro-neutral certification.
IMHO a distro-neutral certification is a computing science degree.
49 matches
Mail list logo
