Unofficial RH-Distribution-FAQ -- WAS: Lurker Suggestion

[Bryan J. Smith]

Axel Thimm wrote:  
> Just a feedback datapoint: I very much like the work you have done. It
> puts the versioning mess of RHL/RHEL/FC in a very nice comparative
> table, making it possible to get an overview. :)

Thanx.  The work is minimal compared to the work of Red Hat and the
community.  I'm just standing on the shoulders of giants, trying to hand
down a document to the people below who snub their noses.  It's easier
than trying to shout down to them, which is only getting me labelled as
a "Red Hat apologist."

> Is your implicit suggestion to get this nomenclature well known and
> start versioning on this "technical" nomenclature instead of the
> "marketing" nomenclature?

I no longer am attempting to do that.  It will only make me look more
like a "Red Hat apologist."  I even considered referring to CL/EL
collectively as RHxL -- e.g., CL3/EL3 = RHxL3 -- but that's only going
to "push the envelope" when it comes to "trademarks/relationship."

So what I've done is basically is give myself (and others) a "technical
designation" to "tag" releases.  So when I'm trying to explain why
someone running Red Hat Linux 9 (CL3.1) should move to Fedora Core 1
(CL3.2), I can point them to that FAQ.  It might not catch all of them,
but it will help with some of the older Red Hat users.

Especially if and when "Legacy" decides to stop supporting CL3.1 in
favor of only CL3.2 in the CL3/EL3 series.  In fact, the whole
designation is a "good guide" on how to CL/EL will be supported (which
I'm detailing now in another section).

> Personally I would very much like to see this plan work out, but
> there will probably be political barriers to this.

You might be surprised.  If it helps Red Hat and the Fedora team explain
why Legacy is still releasing updates for Fedore Core 4 (CL4.2) and
Fedora Core 1 (CL3.2), but not Fedora Core 2 (CL4.1) or Fedora Core 3
(CL4.0), the "technical designation" might be adopted.  But that's
just being hopeful.

In any case, it's the reference on GLibC/GCC I've always wanted to write.

-- Bryan

P.S.  I wish no credit for this, and I'm sure other people are now
saying, "why didn't I think of that" (or even, "yeah, I thought of
doing that too").  I'm really just looking for a reference that I can
through at an "anti-Red Hat bigot" in the hope of breaking their FUD.


-- 
Compatibility matrix of Red Hat(R) distributions of Linux(R):  
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-3.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith                                  b.j.smith at ieee.org