John wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2003, John Beamon wrote:
This is a tiny bit of a tangent, but it's relevant for me right now,
snip
I firmly believe there will not be a 9.x: there is 9 and _not_ 9.0. Its
successor, I predict, will be 10.
If you want the stablility you have been accustomed to in 7.3 then you
must pay for one of the ES offering that's not yet available, or discard
your RH knowledge and adopt another distribution.
I know that second paragraph is meant as helpful advice, but I've heard
it from several responders already. "If you want the stability you have
been accustomed to in 7.3, then you must pay...", message after message.
I have a boxed set of 7, released without a decimal, and I think 6
was as well. I don't know that the prediction of rolling 9 straight up
to 10 will prove true, but the context of the message is nonetheless
disturbing. No common users are going to be interested in "Linux 14"
and "Linux 15" coming out eight months apart, let alone admins who got
their companies involved to ESCAPE Frequent User Fees.
I want stability. I've had at least incremental predictability in minor
versions since 6. For my experience, that's 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, 7.1, 7.2,
and 7.3, over a considerable expanse of time in "Linux years". That's
gone now. I will not be the first to bash RH for a business plan, but
the first has long since come and gone on this list. When the kickstart
list at redhat.com has a thriving thread about automating SuSe and
Debian, there's a problem.
KS is a good product, and I'll likely be rolling my next full platform
out with KS and a heavily customized, barely recognizable RH
installation. I'm building .rpm's for half the stuff we use already. I
have all the parts here for a good package manager (don't flame that...
it won't help the discussion), an automated installer, and a base
installation upon which I can roll one for the company. And my scripts
will end with...
%post
(uname -sr && rpm -q anaconda) > /etc/redhat-release
cp /etc/redhat-release > /etc/issue
-j
