End of life for FC1?
James Wilkinson
james at westexe.demon.co.uk
Thu Jun 10 22:52:46 UTC 2004
Jim Cornette wrote:
> I was looking at some of the other RHL releases. These releases had
> problems also. more things were probably held back, because of a more
> safe approach with the releases. Anyway, the releases were not bug free.
> If you can remember back to realplayer and RHL 6. Also RHL 8 had
> problems for me and many others related to burning discs.
This is a very good point. In the traditional RHL releases, a new major
number (e.g. 5.2 to 6.0) meant that Red Hat had broken binary
compatibility somewhere. They'd usually take the opportunity to start
moving to a new kernel (2.0 to 2.2, for example), change the compiler,
bring out a new version of glibc, or whatever.
And some pain would be felt by many people (remember the decision to
include gcc "2.96", which Linus Torvalds called "idiotic"? [1])
Many people felt and said that a Red Hat x.0 release was potentially
unstable, an x.1 release would be pretty good, and an x.2 release would
be very good: something upon which you could build a really stable
server.
What we have with FC2 is an x.0 release. We have a new kernel, a new
security system, major upgrades to a lot of subsystems, and the
traditional teething problems. We're told that FC3 will have a lot fewer
major changes to the way things work.
So with any luck, FC3 should be as good as the traditional RHL x.1
release, and RHEL 4 a really stable, worthwhile x.2.
God speed, everyone!
James.
[1] http://lwn.net/2000/1221/a/lt-rh7.php3
--
E-mail address: james@ | "I blame the teachers, and I blame the politicians
westexe.demon.co.uk | for picking the teachers, and I blame the parents
| for voting them in, and top of the list I put the
| bastard who invented the caps-lock key."
| -- Chris Hacking
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list