On 12 Apr 2003, Bill Anderson wrote: >> >> never tried prelinking myself so cant help there >> >> not suprised you never tried 8.1 cause it has never existed. >> > >> >Okay okay, I mean Phoebe. I had guessed 8.1 beta would become 8.1, so I >> >got into the habit of calling it 8.1. When I refer to "8.1", I mean >> >Phoebe, which was beta to 9. >> >> There was never an "8.1 beta". Go back and look at any Red Hat >> beta release and you will not find any beta that says it is "8.1 >> beta". Our beta releases have not ever been called what the >> final release of the product will be plus the word beta. For >> example, what became 8.0, was not "8.0 beta", it was several >> beta releases numbered 7.3.9x where x was an internal build >> number of that beta release, which generally varies from 0 to 5 >> roughly. The betas for Red Hat Linux 7.1 were 7.0.9x, the betas >> for 7.2 were 7.1.9x, the betas for 7.3 were 7.2.9x, the betas for >> 8.0 were 7.3.9x, and the betas for 9 were 8.0.9x. There was >> never an 8.1 beta. >> >> The only "8.1" is that which was invented by various users out >> there in their own minds as to what the next Red Hat Linux >> release would be called based on some historical precedence. For > >Not completely true, Mike. In March there was a posting at RedHat.com >for a support person. It specifically said it was for a position that >would include "during the release of Red Hat Linux 8.1". :^) I haven't >looked since March though. No it is definitely true, and there's no question about it. Internal people in the company are just as susceptible of making mistakes as are people outside of the company, and if someone does make such a mistake, such as our German website mistakenly presenting "Red Hat Linux 9.0" on the website in a few locations, that constitutes a human error, and not a "truth". There is a big difference. -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
