Re: Update problems, v 6.2

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Sorber" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Update problems, v 6.2


> >>It is hard to say if you would be better off with RH 7.x.
Actually, 8.0
> >>has been out for 3 months, and 8.1 beta just came out.
> >  (Roland Verlander" <[email protected]> wrote: "No, Red Hat 7.x is
> >buggy. 8.0 is even worse.)

I have not had any problems with any of the Red Hat 7.x releases.  But
then, I only use them for sendmail, dhcp, ftp, and samba servers.  Red
Hat 8.0 is ... different from previous Red Hat releases.  I haven't
made up my mind about it yet.  But different != buggy.

> Correction: -----  IF THE x IS ODD: ----
> >   Doesn't the second decimal (for example the x in 7.x) mean it
> >is an experimental OS, which may have no relation to where Linux
> >is going? I want to stick to the even x's!

You are confusing Linux kernel numbering conventions and Red Hat
release conventions.  Kernel versions with even minor numbers (2.2.x,
2.4.x) are release kernels, and are expected to be stable.  Kernel
versions with odd minor numbers (2.3.x, 2.5.x) are development
kernels, and therefore not expected to be stable.

Numbered Red Hat releases are all supported, stable releases.  Some
are more stable than others, but all are supposed to be reliable.  Red
Hat beta releases are named, but not numbered like 7.3, 8.0 or
whatnot.  They may have a number like 8.0.99 used internally, but it
is not used to identify the release.

> Happy New Year! Back on the web on Thursday, 2 January 2003!
>
> Gordon
>