[lug] Redhat 7.0
mec at dotorg.org
Sun Oct 22 07:29:51 MDT 2000
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 01:49:52AM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> It just dawned on me... I'm sure there *was*, but did anyone here have any
> experience with RedHat 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, or 4.x?
As memory serves, redhat started getting popular around 3.0.3, the
Mother's Day release, IIRC... I started with somewhere in the 4.x series.
> I started at 5.1, or somewhere thereabouts, after watching a friend fight
> his way through some nasty SlackWare stuff back then...
Heh... I remember the days of SLS and slack 1/2.... those were fun. My first
install that I completely performed was Slack2.2.
> I'll gladly defend Debian's numbering system which seems to not need to be
> hit over the head with the cluebat -- it seems to more truly reflect the
> state of maturity of the Linux OS in general, with 2.2 being the latest
> "stable" release...
> The use of a codename also helps keep keep folks from focusing in on version
> numbers so much...
> RedHat = Guinness -- They were drinking too much of it the night they took
> the GCC snapshot and decided "it's good enough, ship it!".
> Debian (stable) = Potato -- Named after a rolly-polly cartoon character with
> lots of spare parts you have to put together yourself to make him
> interesting. Otherwise he's kinda dull.
> They both fit their respective distros!! :)
You know, as a die-hard (or is that blow-hard) Debian convert (from RH,
incidentally) I should take offense at that. But, since I've gotta take my
boxen down for the install fest... bah, fuckit. :P
More information about the LUG