Re: release name

I second that and add that the revisions/versions/releases need to be
branded as such in /etc/redhat-release or a similar location.  Also that RH
needs to clearly announce (at least to the paid subscribers) when a new
release, new isos, etc are available and what the differences are.  There
is still way too much ad hoc communication occurring.

Jim Wildman, CISSP, RHCE
Open Systems Eng. Sr I
Unix Infrastructure Services
Enterprise Midrange:
Bank One - Infrastructure and Operations
[email protected]
Desk: 614.217.0470    Pager: 877.344.1645  Text email:
[email protected]




"Vanco, Don" <don.vanco-tWnNlxMdGQNWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>@redhat.com on 10/10/2003 08:10:35 AM

Please respond to [email protected]

Sent by:  [email protected]


To:   "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:

Subject:  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





This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.


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