[lug] Redhat 7.0

[John Hernandez]

Nate's point here bring up another question in my mind.  People keep
saying things like "I won't touch the x.0 release.  I'll wait until at
least x.2"  To me, it seems like many of the distros roll these number
arbitrarily, based on the advise of some marketing folks who
feel like the product needs some sort of facelift or makeover.  From my
perspective, it's always just the latest stable kernel, surrounded by the
latest stable releases of GNU/Apache/XFree86/etc.

Maybe they should just ditch the meaningless release numbers and go with
something less subjective like "Redhat October 2000."  Or maybe someone
else has an explanation that makes sense, and I'm just talkin' smack.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Nate Duehr wrote:

> releasing OS X in time for the RSA patent expiration.  There was NO need to
> release nor any huge developments to suggest a roll from a 6.x number to 7.x
> was necessary right now, other than the inclusion of OpenSSH.  Whooop deee
> doo... OpenBSD has had it for a long time now.  It was the U.S. patent
> system that had that one all messed up for us... it's not a reason for a
> major revision number roll.