> On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:20:38PM -1000, Matthew John Darnell wrote: > > Their stance seems a lot of double speak. In the past a dot > > release meant smaller but significant improvements. A rose by > > anyother name.... > > Can you list particular versions that this applies to? From my > vantage point, the .0 releases have always been significant, with > the later dot releases as mostly bug fixes.
I agree, when I say dot release I mean, 6.1, 7.1, 7.2 etc > I saw Red Hat be criticized by the business community for being a > moving target, while at the same time not having the latest and > greatest packages. Debian and FreeBSD has been doing this for > years (stable/testing/unstable and release/stable/current). > > Although I think their naming convention is a bit odd (it is more > of a stable than advanced in my book), I am very glad that they > decided to actually have different products aimed at different > types of users. When I learned of this, I thought "it's about > time". I do think these decisions will increase the penetration > of Red Hat Linux in the business community. I think its a smart move. They remain open source, gain the help and give back to the community, and are still able to pay their employees so they can eat and keep a roof over their head. > For the folks using Red Hat but not paying for RHN, how and how > often are you watching for updates? Are you downloading updates > nightly via alternative means? Have you subscribed to Bugtraq and > Red Hat's security mailing list? If no to any of these, is this > an acceptable risk within your network? I have not subscribed to those lists, but I run the up2date tool and it notifies me when there is a package needed to install. My comment about double speak was a reference that they can pour more time and effort into R&D by not haveing dot releases. I have loaded evey version of Red Hat since 6.0 and this is the first time I have experienced a problem with basic setup using standard hardware. -Matt
