Hey Mike, Your theory for 7.0 sounds good but doesn't explain why Red Hat came out with 8.0 instead of 8, since they jumped to 9 right after that before there was a 8.1. I think the next version should be Red Hat 20 :-) ~~Nick > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:36:44 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > > > Oh, please, not that topic again. The 7.x series started with > > > > > > Red Hat Linux 7 > > > > > > (no dot zero!) at least on the box and the main web page, but some > > > people from Red Hat didn't care much and referred to it as version > > > "7.0" in documentation or directory names. That's why searching > > > www.redhat.com for "7.0" returns many results. > > > > All the "Official Red Hat Linux" documentation and release notes for > > Guinness call it "Red Hat Linux 7.0". > > Not just documentation and release notes. Most important, > /etc/redhat-release contains "Red Hat Linux 7.0 (Guinness)". > > Anyway, you misunderstood my comment somewhat it seems. I didn't > mean to say that Guinness was not "7.0". I meant to say that the > official name was not so clear and that the "earlier versioning > scheme" was not so well-defined as major dot minor. In the list > archives (not sure which list) you would find postings where I point > out that docs and packages contain "7.0" despite the "7" on box and > web page. > > At the time Guinness was released, you could not know for sure > whether the next version would be 7.1 or 8. As soon as 7.1 was out, > there was no reason whatsoever to insist on 7, aided by the fact > that the Pinstripe beta version was prepared for a 7.0 release and > that "7.0" made it into several packages (as you agree with). > Probably the idea to release it as 7 came too late. > > > Howver, the release after 8.0 is just 9, not 9.0. > > Right now. Because this time they got it right early enough in > documentation, packages and on the web (apart from a few glitches). > [Since it has been fixed, I can tell that for a short time you could > order "Red Hat Linux 9.0".] But imagine, the next version after 9 > would be 9.1, inspite of all rumours that the next version will be > 10. In that case, it would not change the name of 9, but would > it make it be like a 9.0? > > I'm all for calling the product by the name its referred to most > often in documentation and packages, which is "Red Hat Linux 9 > (Shrike)", or using a common short-form such as "RHL 9" with or > without space. > > William Hooper wrote: > > > > You need to talk to more computer newbies! I quit counting the > > number of times someone has asked me about "Microsoft 98" > > (translation "Microsoft Word 97") or "Microsoft 97" (translation > > "Microsoft Windows95"). > > I haven't heard/seen anything like that. It's popular to omit > "Microsoft" and use names like "Word 97", "W2K", "W95", "Word 97", > "IE 6", "Outlook", "OE",... > > > Could be worse, he could have asked "Is this where I talk > > about Linux 9?". > > That's a *very* common one, IMO. > > - -- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE+9OiT0iMVcrivHFQRAmIKAJ46yWqYSCiojf68B7Bm+PST4JDaCgCfXEGY > YnkMAyg4jZxVyntZkUo34wo= > =Xb6X > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
