I knew that the 2.5 kernel was a development kernel. I did not realize that Redhat release numbering did not follow that convention.
Knowing is half the battle (or something like that).
I got the concept that Red Hat followed the odd/even scheme from some comments that others made awhile back. The article that I was reading, in the timeframe for the 6.x releases that someone referenced. Since that time, I thought that the odd numbers were less stable than the even ordered releases. But in practice, I always tried to run the latest releases and paid little attention to the actual versioning number.
I suppose that expalins why the reviewer was finding that 6.1 worked better than either 6.0 or 6.2.
Take miscelanious, I never remember the official misspeledI usually abrieviate thev word as misc. It doesn't follow any convention for spelling that I heard of. Is this word perhaps non-english, where it would follow that language's rules and regs 4 spelling.version. I also spelled their as thier for many many years. (I before e, except after C)
Miscellaneous. Sorry, spelling is one of my pet peeves. :) I just prefer to see people spell things correctly, because in my mind, mis-spellings detract from the respect people have for what you say (er, write).
I try to spell things correctly. What spelling does for me is very little. I take it that those that do not finite their spelling to a conformity standard are more genuine and are less likely to be clones from a tribe.
A completely conformity spelled document usually conveys deceptiveness and conformity for a person. Deception, because most likely, they need the aid of a spell checker. Conformity, because it sounds like a "Felix Ungar" for the language community.
Anyway, if the backporting effort is really a workable option, to using the developmental version of the kernel, within odd numbered releases. I guess the only non-backported option would be to build your own 2.5 vesion of the kernel to use the enhancements within my home use linux environment.
Exactly. But note that Red Hat won't provide any support whatsoever for a machine with something other than an officially released Red Hat kernel, for obvious reasons.
I understand the conformity rational regarding support. If it ain't in the supported "dictionary" for rules and regulations. It isn't in whole a "spellchecked" problem.
I think that it is a policy that both adds core to the product and also severely inhibits more rapid advancements for the distribution.
I feel that if you expect to make a profit from Linux. You will have to abandon the concept of all the ducks in a row. For paying customers, they are both real and hardly regard limitations on paid for options as an acceptable situation.
For my situation, with computer systems, that are used at work. There is no usage of linux, for the most part. I think that odd numbered releases should be odd numbered and follow the developmental phases of the kernel. Of course, this idea goes to the "added effort" and little added benefits that adding the bp-sec or bp-broken-opt wiuld convey to an average person, that would be aided with the visual que. Though, I agree with the ending argument that you cannot save the world. Though, it is pretty entertaining to do so.
I whole-heartedly disagree with your idea that odd-numbered OS releases ought to be development versions. That is what betas are for. Do you know of any other company putting out an operating system in that manner?
Betas are made to take the alpha factor out of the equation. Running official developmental releases is a concept that I favor. This beta cycle went through three phases. Get to phase 1, then you are stagnant until phase 2. Run phase 2 for awhile, then you are stagnated at phase 3.
This is my first beta release that I also interacted within a mailing group. I have learned a lot from the time that I have spent on the list and beta.
I appreciate the wide range of intellects that are also participating on the beta. I learned more about Red Hat, than solo on my 4.2 to present cowboying probably achieved.
Jim
-- Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
-- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
