Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> RHL X.0 releases were (unofficially) beta like FCx is now.
> RHL X.2 and X.3 were the same product with about everything
> fixed. Likewise FCx is where new code first meets widely
> varying conditions
Be _careful_ with that assertion. Because it would also mean
that Red Hat Linux 9 was just as much of a X.0 release as Red
Hat Linux 8.0. This is simply _not_ true!
Just like it's not true of Fedora Core 1, which many of us
considered to be a X.2 release, Fedora Core 3, which many of
us consider to be a X.1 release, etc...
Just because Red Hat took away the revisions back after Red
Hat Linux 8.0, doesn't mean that Red Hat Linux 9 wasn't a
X.1, etc...
> and RHEL is where it has accumulated the fixes that no one
> would have known it needed without the FCx exposure.
Agreed on that point.
> Yes, every FC release introduces some new major version
> number updates in upstream packages, where the updates
> within the release don't.
Again, I disagree with this assertion on Fedora Core, just
like I would on Red Hat Linux 9.
> FC3 is at the end of the cycle where the new bugs in the
> new code are fixed,
But let us not forget that most of FC3's lessons were based
on those learned in FC2. Just like in FC1 from RHL9 and from
RHL8 before that, etc..., before a new version was made.
--
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
