RE: release name

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> scribbled on
Friday, October 10, 2003 8:38 AM:
> 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.  
	Well, a portion of the information is buried 5 clicks deep here:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/  under the guise of "Update X
($date) 'foo Notes' ", but again there's no allusion to a v1 or v2 unless
the "quarterly dates" are meant to hold some kind of release significance to
someone (be far to easy to name them v1 and v2 since that's apparently
what's been assigned to the releases).  First time I saw "Quarterly Updates"
(via the RHN interface, not via the support site) that pointed to a text
file based on a relatively ambiguous "quarter" I thought it was merely some
kind of marketing newsletter and dismissed it completely....

> There is still way too much ad hoc communication
> occurring. 
	Once it's in the hands of Marketing it's not likely to change.......
but to defend the "singular digit" release identifier as somehow superior
when there's still an applied modifier as better than x.0, x.1, etc. is just
lame - it's the same concept in different (but arguably more confusing)
packaging.

Don


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