Red Hat's Bluecurve (was: Red Hat 8.0 is 'official')

[pll at lanminds.com]

In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 15:50:12 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:

>  The basic issue is that Red Hat only bumps major release numbers when
>there are backward (or is it forward?  Or both maybe?  I forgot) binary
>compatibility issues.  I think the fact that they stuck with the .0, .1,
>.2 release numbers is purely coincidental.  There was nothing in the
>release following 7.2 to justify calling it 8.0, so they stuck with the
>7.x numbering.

So what was in 7.3?  Was it enhancements or something?  I don't think 
I've actually played with 7.3 at all (came out while I was "between jobs"
and I haven't had a need to use Linux for much of anything other than 
my own desktop, which is Debian.  Hmmm, maybe I should get vmware :)

>They try not to play release number races with other
>distros.  (Actual, most distros have been pretty good about not doing
>that.  Now Solaris -- that's another story ;-)).

What do mean by that?  Solaris is still on 2.x, 2.9 just got released?

(Remember, it's only the output of 'uname' that matters, since we 
tech weenies never pay attention to marketing efforts ;)
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
	It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

	 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!