Between Fedora 12 and 13 [LWN.net]

Between Fedora 12 and 13

Posted Dec 1, 2009 2:18 UTC (Tue) by mattdm (subscriber, #18)
In reply to: Between Fedora 12 and 13 by smoogen
Parent article: Between Fedora 12 and 13

This pattern continues -- 6.2 was a very solid release, and then 7 was awful but usable again after 7.2.

Then things got all strange with a 7.3 release, but we're back to awful at 8.0. (No offense to all you Red Hat engineers who worked on this -- I'm sure it wasn't your fault.)

But then RHL 9 was very, very nice. I mean, so nice that it took me like, a decade to retire it at BU.

But then, if we pretend FC1 and FC2 were like Red Hat 10.0 and 10.1, it all makes sense again, with FC3 being the first really good Fedora.

(I don't think the progression follows after that, but I've been runnning rawhide since Fedora 7, so I'm a bit out of touch.)

(Log in to post comments)

Between Fedora 12 and 13

Posted Dec 2, 2009 11:45 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]

Everything before RH8 was ugly as pants. RH7.1 and 7.2 were crashy as well as being horrible to look at. RH7.3 was pretty stable.

RH8 was a drastic improvement so far as the UI was concerned. It had that one bug in libc which made broke external mysql connections (bug id 77467). The way I fixed it was to pull in some kind of grotty third-party version of libc. But I was so happy about the UI fixes that I was willing to overlook any other problems.

Between Fedora 12 and 13

Posted Dec 3, 2009 20:26 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

This was all pretty much intended. Oh, certainly RH wanted every release to be stable. But
the X.0 releases got a bunch of new features, and the X.1 and X.2 releases were stabilizing
releases. This was all long before Fedora. But one could roughly equate RH X.0 to a Fedora
release, and RH X.1 and X.2 to RHEL releases. The mapping is not perfect, but you get the
idea. Incidentally, there was an enterprise 6.2 release. (6.2E) It was the forerunner of RHEL.
And RH 7.2 was the basis for RHEL2.1. (Amusingly, the first RHEL release was 2.1, because
the enterprise shuns both 1.x releases, and x.0 releases. 2.1 was the first marketable
number available!)

The transition from the old libc to glibc in RH5.0 is one I remember well. Folks grumbling
about Xorg driver regressions today really have no idea. I don't think that *anything* since
then has been so disruptive. I still have a RH 5.0 box up in my storage room. And when I
pass it a get a sort of feeling of nostalgia, with an underlying case of mild heebee-geebies.

And the strange thing about it is... it seems like only yesterday. Cliché, I know. But it really
does seem like only a year or two ago.