[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: End of life for FC1?

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

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!


[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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]