release name

There was a brief (portion of a) thread recently re: the release name (3
-vs- 3.0)

I just got my price list, and it calls the release "RHEL3-v1" so I assume
that any update will follow with a "v2" - which is SOOOOOO MUCH better than
3.0 and then 3.1 (NOT).

<rant>
Did you guys not learn anything from this circa RH6.2 and the last RHEL
release?  It's totally retarded - I'm already having issues with HP
BladeCenters on 2.1 because I can't tell why their setup scripts are failing
on me, but I have a feeling it's because they were written against the "old"
Red Hat Advanced Server (as opposed to the re-branded and slightly tweaked
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Server).  When I talk to customers that
are "long term" AS users and ask them if they are using v1 or v2 for
installation they have no idea what I'm talking about.

It's not wholly accurate to blame RH 100% for the confusion due to the fact
that the vendors really need to add clarity here.... but certainly it's
within their power to eliminate it altogether through revision numbering.
Come on - this is obviously a mechanism to add longevity to marketing
materials, etc - which is fine if done correctly - but I foresee nothing but
troubles if there aren't appropriate steps taken by RH to work with the
hardware vendors to clearly differentiate when it comes to support /
supported platforms.  It'd be SO much easier with RHEL 3.0 followed by RHEL
3.1, but I'm sure that my singular opinion means nothing.

I suppose that, as a Linux consultant, I should welcome the stupidity - it's
sure to keep my services in demand.

</rant>
Don


--
Taroon-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list