Re: [SLUG] RH 8.0, 7.3, 7.2 - Just newer versions of components or are thesevastly different animals?

From: Levi Bard (levi@bard.sytes.net)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 11:23:49 EST


> Context: Differences between 98, NT, Win2K and XP seem fundamental -
> different core OS, some file locations are different, Active Dir/No AD,
> even different gui for some reason - these products don't seem to be
> refinements of the previous product. I don't know many details (We're NT
> shop) but it seems that some of the core design ideas are different.
>
> When, say, RH (or anyone else really) issues a new Linux release, make
> my day and tell me that they don't fundamentally change the product
> framework like MS. I assume that the new version is fundamentally
> unchanged and is a suite of newer/improved versions of existing
> components as well as a different mix of "extra software". I feel sure
> that this must be the case but I'd sure like to get confirmation from a
> person more knowledgeable than I.

A minor release of a distribution like Redhat (7.2 => 7.3) will usually
contain a newer kernel, newer versions of previously included software,
and a few packages added and dropped from the last version.

A major release (7.3 => 8.0) may include more substantial changes, such as
Redhat's switch from inetd to xinetd a while back, and any reorganization
their think tank has decided should really be done. On the other hand,
certain distributors have been known to perform a major release to inflate
the version number, since SomeDistro 5.2 might seem like it's "behind"
OtherDistro 8.1 to a prospective user.

To summarize, a version change is generally just an upgrade of kernel and
included software, with the possibility of larger changes with a major
release.

I would suggest that someone familiar with a Linux distribution will be
able to transition to the next version with negligible effort.

A windows user, as you have observed, often has to relearn the entire
system upon "upgrading." (I tend to think of it as a lateral movement, or
even a downward spiral. Is an OS that requires 256M of RAM to run
_really_ superior to a previous edition with most or all of the same
functionality that required less than 32?)

$0.02

Levi



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:30:08 EDT