On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 00:47, T. Ribbrock wrote: > The above points to faster release cycles for "ordinary" Red Hat => > less stability than what we're used to.
This statement (faster release cycles equals less stability) is unsupported by any statement anyone has made yet. Which part do you expect to be unstable? The kernel? I've run development kernels (1.1.x, 1.3.x, etc) on servers (needed the hardware support) and didn't have problems. Are you referring to applications? XFree86? It isn't clear to me how RedHat releasing newer versions of software faster is going to make much difference. RedHat doesn't write 99% of the software in RH Linux. What's the difference between the user installing the latest version of Apache or Redhat supplying it? It's the same software. If you have problems with a particular package on a new RH release, go get the tarball or rpm of a prior version and install it yourself. Besides, if you want a point release, wait a few weeks after a new RH release comes out, install it and apply the updates from RHN. Tada! A point release. What exactly is the difference between x.0 with all the updates applied and x.1? Not much. -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 x308 (800) 735-0555 x308 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
