[1958] in RedHat Linux List
Re: comment to RH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donnie Barnes)
Wed Oct 30 23:17:33 1996
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: djb@redhat.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:31:24 EST."
<199610310231.VAA06038@chaos>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 23:15:21 -0500
From: Donnie Barnes <djb@redhat.com>
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Your message on: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:31:24 EST
>It seems to me from reading this list, that, despite all good efforts
>and good intentions, RH 4.0 sets a hard road to mount. I am now running
>3.0.3 very stably and very happily. I will probably wait (as others have
>indicated) a bit more before I try to move up to 4.0.
Well, it's the squeeky wheel that gets the grease...and makes
the loudest noise.
There are lots of people running 4.0 just fine. As we've said
before, most of the install problems were FTP install related and
have been solved.
There have also been a few folks who have had some problems getting
the updates to work, but I assure you, on the whole the upgrades
have worked fine. They've been downloaded a few thousand times each
with only a few complaints due to problems here.
If you happily run 3.0.3 and want to wait for something that has
all the updates incorporated, fine.
>So, it is a bit unfortunate that
> 1. the old kernel upgrade info for putting 2.0.x on 3.0.3 has
> disappeared from the RH web site.
Sorry, but it caused more confusion than anything.
> 2. The 3.0.3 manual seems no longer available. (If it is available, I
> haven't been able to find it.)
The 3.0.3 manual was never available. There was an installation
HOWTO, the RedHat-HOWTO, which is still available on the FTP site.
>Once again, I suggest that there be a somewhat delayed upgrade strategy
>in which both 3.0.3 and 4.0 are available, including the manuals. Let
>both be for sale, and let new purchasers decide what they want.
We just can't do that. We thought it would be enough to have a
six week beta, but we were wrong. Many of the bugs listed on the
errata (granted, not many critical bugs, but bugs nonetheless)
existed in Rembrandt and were not found. We are currently
re-evaluating our beta system for that reason.
>You could even say that you 'no longer provide support for 3.0.3 and
>users work at their own risk on their own resources' or some such
>thing.
Sorry, but we aleady say that for the archive sets, yet we get
at least ten inquiries a day from archive owners asking "how
do I get my support?" Besides, would you *really* rather us take
time to make 3.0.3 available again, or would you rather us work
to fix bugs in 4.0 so we can get a 4.1 out the door?
Keep in mind you'd want all those 3.0.3 security updates worked
back in and the like which would mean more testing and on and on...
Sorry, I will not even debate this further. Please don't ask
us to do that.
4.0 is a stable system that does install fine in most cases
from CD-ROM (at least as easily as 3.0.3). Those "customers"
should be happy. It had bugs in the FTP install which we
regret, but have likely fixed. It has some updates that are
required, but we've made that as painless as we can as well.
We're doing all we can, but making 3.0.3 available again
just isn't much of an option.
--Donnie
--
Donnie Barnes http://www.redhat.com/~djb "Bah."
djb@redhat.com http://www.turner.com/lazarusman/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_Things You'd NEVER Expect A Southerner To Say_ by Vic Henley:
** I hate the long version of ``Free Bird''.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Errata
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Tips http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe redhat-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
