Reason for the change

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 19:22, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:14:34PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > Note that "use Red Hat Linux as a base for RHEL" means that
> > > Red Hat Linux will need to remain absolutely stable, so people
> > > don't have to be worried about losing value in Red Hat Linux...
> > 
> > If Red Hat Linux is absolutely stable doesn't that cut into revenues for
> > RHEL?
> 
> I hate the word "stable" because it means different things to different
> people...
> 

I wasn't using the word stable - I was quoting someone else - I think it
was  or Rik Van Riel


> I'm using the word "robust" for the Red Hat Linux project -- we are
> trying to make robust software (though up-to-date) but we're trying to
> keep up with new versions and will release new versions of software even
> for security errata when that's the right thing to do (generally, when
> that's the form the fix comes in from upstream).  A new version comes
> out with new features and enough people are willing to help qualify it?
> No reason not to release the new feature update, too!
> 
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux, by contrast, has very minimal changes within
> a release -- one meaning of "stable" that is critical in an enterprise
> environment.  Obviously they also care about "robust" as well.  Can
> you imagine an enterprise deploying a new version of a major software
> component because it is "fresher"?  That would be IS lunacy.  :-)
> 

depends on what you describe as an 'enterprise'.
I still haven't heard where university 'enterprises' fit in this grand
scheme.

I'm beginning to wonder if we(universities) do at all.

> We haven't set policy here for sure.  Sporadic and incomplete updates
> can be worse for overall security than none at all and an encouragement
> to update.  This needs more thought.

sure enough - but there are a lot of university sysadmins running linux.

a lot of developer hours there.

-sv