Re: RHL 9 - concerns

On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 21:04, Jurgen Botz wrote:

> Actually I would call it a "well known superstition".
> 
> It may have been true historically that RedHat's .0 release were
> often buggier than, say, their .1 or .2 releases, but that was
> due to a combination of RedHat's change-control policies and
> dumb luck.  Personally I thought 8.0 was no more buggy than 7.3,
> actually, at least on servers where the UI changes were irrelevant.
> Seemed pretty solid, actually.
> 
> A Linux distro is an agglomeration of a large number of Open Source
> and Free software packages, all evolving at different rates and
> getting less (and more) buggy at different rates.  Yet to combine
> them into something that works well together you often /have/ to
> upgrade individual packages that you'd rather leave alone, even
> to less stable newer versions.  This stuff is /hard/.
> 
> I believe that how well a given release worked depended much more
> on what you were using it for than the version number.  Sure, if
> the kernel went to a new major version, which usually happened in
> a .0 release, then the overall chances of problems are greater for
> more types of uses.  But note that neither 8.0 nor "9" have a new
> kernel major version.
> 
> RedHat is changing the way their numbering their releases.  Good
> time to get over your superstition.  ;-)

*clap*clap*clap*

Exactly what I was going to say, but much better worded.  Well said!

 - jck

-- 
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."

 - George Bernard Shaw



-- 
Phoebe-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list