[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sheflug] Re: redhat 9.0



On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 09:02, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 00:43, Barrie Bremner wrote:
> > Just to follow on from my last email (and having looked at the release
> > notes via Slashdot) am I looking at this all wrong or is Fedora core 1
> > essentially an Open RH9 + bits?
> 
> Kinda....

Beta codenamed severn-  9.93 - RedHat ; RedHat Linux Project announced
release 2 of severn  -  0.94 - RedHat^H^H^H^H^H^HFedora Core 1
 everyone gets upset and bitches at RedHat for drawing a clear line
between the Enterprise software and the non-money making software.

> 
> > Obviously Fedora will change from the Redhat baseline over time but
> > right now it doesn't seem to be a World apart.
> 
> No, Fedora *is* the RedHat baseline ;) 
> 
> RedHat are now only going to release their Advanced Server, which will
> be built (as I understand it) from stabilised Fedora snapshots. Fedora
> is expected to accumulate more software than RedHat (a bit Debian like),
> which won't make it into RedHat, so I guess in a way Fedora will be a
> superset of RedHat.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that understand that. It certainly looks
as though RedHat will QA packages- but the emphasis won't be on keeping
software stable (e.g. if there is a bug-fix in Apache it might not be
backported any more, instead Apache might be upgraded - and this may
break things).

For anyone not scared of testing updated first, and not scared to go off
and recompile if RH's updates break everything then Fedora isn't really
a real problem.

-- 
Regards,
Adam Allen.

adam [at] dynamicinteraction.co.uk
pgp http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=adam%40dynamicinteraction.co.uk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part