On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 18:35, Mike A. Harris wrote: > 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". No offense Mike, but that is *not* "various users *out there* in their own minds" (emphasis mine), that is a posting from RH, which the rest of us take as amazingly, from RH. If the people *at* RH expect the next release to be 8.1 it seems a bit rude to me to go off on users "out there" doing the same. Further, it *more* than just "historical precedence", it was official policy when I took my RHCE exam was last year that the release sequence was a float based number, not integer releases. Otherwise, there would have been no need to update the policy for RHCEs. The only "truth" I was addressing was your claim that it was an invention of "users out there" in "their own minds". I drew mine from both the posting at RH, *and* the policy as stated when I took my RHCE. That is far from "in my own mind". That's all I was saying. -- Bill Anderson RHCE #807302597505773 bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
