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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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 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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
[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
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
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?
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...
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
