[plug] re: RHL Professional

[Bret Busby]

On Thu, 29 May 2003, Ben Jensz wrote:

> >
> Well if something was certified to run on Red Hat 7.2, I'd expect it to 
> run fine on Red Hat 7.3 as well.  Major version numbers may be 
> different, but minor versions shouldn't be a problem really.  If there 
> are significant changes in a minor version... then really it shouldn't 
> be a minor version.  Just like Red Hat thought there were too many major 
> improvements/upgrades in 9.0 over 8.0 to call it 8.1.
> 
> 
> 

It is my understanding, that Red Hat simply abolished the decimal place 
indicator of new versions, so that effectively, RH 9, was simply RH 
8.1.

The April 16 issue of Red Hat's "Under the Brim" newsletter, indicates 
that Red Hat has done away with the decimal place version numbering, 
confirming the validity of that statement.

I also note that the Red Hat website appears to not include a web page 
that lists significant changes between versions, like some other 
sotftware institutions include on their websites.

Red Hat Linux 9 appears to be no more significant version change, than 
from RH 7.2 to 7.3, and, the facility for upgrading from 7.3 directly to 
9, appears to reinforce this.

However, getting back to the issue that related more to the original 
query, hardware and software that may have been compatible with RH Linux 
7.3, as in Jon's system, are not necessarily as compatible with RH 9, as 
with RH 7.3. I have already given examples of this.

And, yes, it is officially RH Linux 9, NOT RH Linux 9.0. That is "from 
the horse's mouth" (c.f. "Under The Brim", 16 April 2003).

-- 
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
 you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
  Chapter 28 of 
  "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
  A Trilogy In Four Parts",
  written by Douglas Adams, 
  published by Pan Books, 1992 
....................................................