Africa knows who
you are...
Bill Ward
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert P. J. Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: redhat mailing list
> Subject: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early (fwd)
>
>
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
Red Hat has been using this company for quite some time in the mailout of
their 'Under the Brim' newsletter which you can subscribe on their front
page.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> if this is in fact legit, i'm more than a little stunned. who at
> red hat decided to provide
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:56:28 -0500 (EST), Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
> certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
> redhat.chtah.com.
>
> a quick browse of www.chtah.com shows a
Dammit, I just got 8 working the way I want. :o)
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
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?
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
Red Hat list admin:
A number of folks received the following on the Red Hat mailing
list recently. The overwhelming evidence is that it is spam,
given the return address of redhat.chtah.com
Ummm nope. Unless this spammer happened to also take over the
redhat.com domain
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
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:23:58PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> at this point, it's not the existence of red hat 9 that's the issue --
> it's the offer for RHN subscription that appears to be going back to
> an obvious spammer -- that is, chtah.com.
There's a very clear distinction between "an
I'm just trying to figure out why they'd announce a jump from RH8.0
direct to 9.0 that'll be available the day before April Fool's day. This
kind of thing would make a great April Fool's joke, but judging by the
web site, they're serious about it. No obvious domain hijacking going on
either:
[
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
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
can someone clarify this? i mean, it makes no sense for red hat
to be sending out offers like this from the chtah.com domain,
does it?
All previous announcements have been done through this domain as well,
including their RHCE specific surveys, etc. Unless they're reall
: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, 24 Mar 2003, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> Rober! This is *NOT* spam.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/mktg/rh9iso/
>
> And the email I got FROM RH has my username and info in it. It is most
> certainly from RedHat, and it most certainly is v9.0.
if this is in fact legit, i'm more than a little stun
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Jody Cleveland wrote:
> > before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
> > certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
> > redhat.chtah.com.
> >
> > a quick browse of www.chtah.com shows an obvious
> > spammer. so this is total nonsense.
>
> I al
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
Look at www.redhat.com there is a reference to RHL 9 over there.
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 15:11, Jody Cleveland wrote:
> > before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
> > certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
> > redhat.chtah.com.
> >
> > a quick browse of www.ch
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 12:56, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
> certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
> redhat.chtah.com.
>
> a quick browse of www.chtah.com shows an obvious
> spammer. so this is total nonsense.
Actually, g
> A number of folks received the following on the Red Hat mailing
> list recently. The overwhelming evidence is that it is spam,
> given the return address of redhat.chtah.com.
This is from the marketing company redhat has been using for several of it's
most recent emails.I also recieved an
On 3/24/03 11:56 AM, "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spit this
out onto my computer screen:
>
> before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
> certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
> redhat.chtah.com.
>
> a quick browse of www.chtah.com shows an obvious
> spa
But would http://www.redhat.com/mktg/rh9iso/ resolve?
-eric
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
> certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
> redhat.chtah.com.
>
> a quick browse of www.chtah.com shows an obvious
> spammer. so this
te: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:21:04 -
From: Red Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Red Hat
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early
Dear rob day:
You may know that Red Hat Network is the best way to keep your
systems running the
bert P. J. Day
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 12:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: redhat mailing list
> Subject: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early (fwd)
>
>
>
> Red Hat list admin:
>
> A number of folks received the following on the Red Hat mai
I thought so too, but it's mentioned on the Redhat web site.
Mike
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 11:56, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
> certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
> redhat.chtah.com.
>
> a quick browse of www.chtah
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
> before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
> certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
> redhat.chtah.com.
>
> a quick browse of www.chtah.com shows an obvious
> spammer. so this is total nonsense.
I also belong to Redhat Network. They sent a message about this
.
Thanks for your attention.
rday
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:21:04 -
From: Red Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Red Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early
Dear rob day:
You may know
before anyone gets too cranked up about this, it is almost
certainly bogus. look at the return email address --
redhat.chtah.com.
a quick browse of www.chtah.com shows an obvious
spammer. so this is total nonsense.
rday
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
h
> 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
ROTECTED]
> Subject: [Fwd: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early]
>
>
> 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
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]>
Reply-To: "Red Hat"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D
42 matches
Mail list logo
