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
