Slashdot Mirror


Red Hat 9 To Be Released March 31

Garfunkel writes "Looks like Red Hat is breaking tradition and skipping 8.1 and 8.2 and jumping directly to 9.0 RHN subscribers get it a week ahead on March 31st. Available to the rest the world a week later (April 7)." The website refers to the upcoming release simply as "9" -- which doesn't rule out future point releases, but could it be?

30 of 699 comments (clear)

  1. Odd... by cyclist1200 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    9 instead of 8.1?
    Could this be an early April Fool's joke?

    1. Re:Odd... by Lechter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With no PR build-up, and no listing of new features on RedHat's website (can anyone else find any, because I certainly can't!) this release certainly looks like a bad joke, and if it's not an April Fools then it makes Red Hat look like a bad joke.

      I'm using 8.0 now, and RH's games with registration and update-systems combined with their ridiculous "BlueCurve" rebranding (I'm sorry, but it just takes RH even farther away from any sort of standard, and forces it's users to go to RH for software updates), combine to make Red Hat look un-professional. Why should I buy any of their software, if they're just going to come out with a new major version months later and leave me in the dust?

      I mean really, what warrents this? Is there a brand new Kernel major version that I've somehow missed hearing about? Does RH have the inside on a new blazingly fast XFree86? If this is serious it's a ridiculous marketing game, and if it's a joke it's wholly unprofessional!

      As soon as I've time it's back to the source and on to Gentoo for me!

      --
      credo quia absurdum
  2. Pain and Misery by bperkins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So far, point releases have had useful enhancements, while major releases have redone everything and made life miserable. (e.g. using xinetd and broken a gcc in 7.0, metacity stubbornly by default in 8.0)

    Hopefully this is just a marketing decision.

    1. Re:Pain and Misery by connsmythe96 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I was patiently waiting for a minor release after 8.0 to solve all the problems I had heard about. I hope this one is just 9.0 by name and not another complete remake with all the associated bugs and problems of an X.0 version. I'll be waiting on reviews before downloading, for sure...

      --
      if(!cool) exit(-1);
    2. Re:Pain and Misery by Zugot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Download it yourself, and make your own assumptions. I can't believe how many people don't test their software before. If it is that critical, you should have a testing environment.

      --
      -- Bryan
  3. Yippie. by naelurec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So essentially Red Hat upgrades from 8 to 9 in ~6 months. No wonder no one wants to write general-release commerical apps for Linux .. by the time they develop & test their product, the distro essentially discontinues the release & doesn't support it. At this rate, I don't think we will ever convince developers of some great software (Adobe, Macromedia, etc) to port to Linux. Way too much support-related cost involved. But I'm sure that there are some really excellent features packed into 9 to make it worth being a full version upgrade and not a point upgrade (uhh.. not)

    1. Re:Yippie. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So essentially Red Hat upgrades from 8 to 9 in ~6 months. No wonder no one wants to write general-release commerical apps for Linux .. by the time they develop & test their product, the distro essentially discontinues the release & doesn't support it.

      I didn't see anything about the difference in numbers determining for how long a particular release was supported. In fact, I'm pretty sure that RH8.0 will be supported for 12 months - like they said it would be.

      At this rate, I don't think we will ever convince developers of some great software (Adobe, Macromedia, etc) to port to Linux.

      We won't convince them by taking a half-broken desktop that hardly anybody uses and claiming it's stable either.

      Desktop Linux (which is what redhat linux is now) is still very much beta software. When it's actually fully competitive with Windows in every respect, then expect it to start slowing down in terms of churn. Everybodies up in arms because a major release number means things change and backwards compatability is sometimes lost. Maybe in future we'll all be using distros with 6 month release cycles still, but that doesn't mean there will be chaos in the realm.

      But I'm sure that there are some really excellent features packed into 9 to make it worth being a full version upgrade and not a point upgrade (uhh.. not)

      You make it sound like the major version number is based on how many cool features something has. It isn't. It's based on significant loss of compatability/significant changes in the API/ABI levels.

  4. RHL 7.0 started out as Red Hat Linux 7 by peewhitlle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been pointed out on the beta list that 7.0 was just called 7 when it came out. That didn't stop a 7.[123] from appearing later.

  5. Features & Verson numbers by d3xt3r · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If Red Hat has refined it and added enough features and eye candy, it may well warrant a new version number.

    I've always thought that versioning should be more related to features & point releases than anything external, like "marketing".

    I see a few reasons for the "9" over 8.1

    1. Red Hat changed things enough and added enough new features to warrant 9.0.
    2. Marketing figured 8.1 wouldn't sell as many copies a 9.0

    I'd really like to see a list of "new features" so I can decide for myself. :)

    1. Re:Features & Verson numbers by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is one and only one reason that Red Hat bumps the major number, and that's binary compatability. If you can't run binaries under it that you could in the previous release, then it can't have the same major-number. Period. Usually the reason for the change in binary compatibility is due to library changes (e.g. new major version of glibc).

      Now, there may be political, marketing or contractual reasons that a major number is prefered, but since binary compatibility is not guaranteed between major releases, you'll usually find that the one leads to the other, and thus the original statement holds true (i.e. engineers are free to rev libs in a major release, so they do).

      The reason that Red Hat would release a new major version so soon after 8.0 is almost certainly to track the latest desktop updates which have been fast-and-furious since 8.0 was released, especially from GNOME (2.2.x is FAR more reasonable than 2.0, which IMHO, Red Hat released too early).

    2. Re:Features & Verson numbers by kasperd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Marketing figured 8.1 wouldn't sell as many copies a 9.0

      Why? I'm still running RH7.3. The reason I didn't upgrade to 8.0 is mainly that the .0 releases are by many considered to be problematic. I tried 7.0 when it was released and I hated it. I had decided to upgrade from 7.3 to 8.1 as soon as 8.1 was released. Now I start wondering if I should rather stay on 7.3 and wait for 9.1 to be released. Or is it about time I try another distribution?

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    3. Re:Features & Verson numbers by prockcore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now what if RedHat changes it's mind and renames the release to 8.1 at the last minute? Does that mean you would use it?

      Now we see the problem of judging an app by it's version number rather than it's reviews.

      Reguardless of the version number, either wait until the reviews are in, or try it out on a machine you don't care about. A version number is meaningless.. even the difference between 9.0 and 8.1 is arbitrary.

    4. Re:Features & Verson numbers by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? I'm still running RH7.3. The reason I didn't upgrade to 8.0 is mainly that the .0 releases are by many considered to be problematic. I tried 7.0 when it was released and I hated it. I had decided to upgrade from 7.3 to 8.1 as soon as 8.1 was released. Now I start wondering if I should rather stay on 7.3 and wait for 9.1 to be released. Or is it about time I try another distribution?

      Yeah, according to RH's research, 80 of the RH users out there are running 7.x or higher. But i'd suspect not more than 30% or so are running redhat 8, and most of those are desktop's, i'm sure, not servers. Which brings up:

      There's a much bigger problem:
      What about support for those of us running RH 7.x?? What happens when a vulnerability occurs in the code? How far back do you think they'll release patches? I know they don't continually patch 6.x now, so I'd imagine that they won't continue to patch 7.x after this release. That's going to leave me and my 50 computers at work running RH 7.x high and dry.

      Cause, I'm damn sure not upgrading to RH 8. You may think it's buggy, but you don't know the half of it. Try running it on a server sometime - it CAN'T be done in a sane manner. The default install installed apache 2, but then tried to install a version of mod_perl that is incompatable with 2.0, so then it also installed 1.3.19, but then mod_php wouldn't work, no SSL support, etc. Good grief. RH 8 was buggy beyond belief.

      So, now, i'm expected to update to something, either 8 or 9 on 50 comptuers at work, and not break anything in the upgrade?

      Thanks, redhat. If you weren't what everyone asked for, i'd move back to debian or gentoo. This is exactly why no one wants to release binaries for linux. If you wrote something for NT 3.51, chances are it still works in 2k server. Not saying that IIS is better, but linux needs to work on the not forking so much thing, and leave some sanity in the backwards compatability.

      --
      sig?
  6. Re:why do subscribers get it ahead by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uh, because being a subscribed user has its perks?

    It's not a scam. If you don't want to pay, then don't. If you want to pay, then you'll not only get things a whole week ahead of time, you'll also get support.

    What on earth does this have to do with "the cult of Linux"?

  7. ugh, even linux does it now by AssFace · · Score: 3, Insightful

    people are retarded and must have the newest version number, or the fastest clockspeed - even if that doesn't necessarily denote "better"

    I would have thought that the linux crowd would be smart enough to be above that... which isn't to say that they aren't - perhaps it is the sales and marketing people at redhat that are retarded here.

    They should just step it up to 34 and show their customers that all the others suck.

    (of course nothing should ever go past version 42)

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  8. Breaking binary compatibility? by yorgasor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Historically, RedHat has always guaranteed that all .x releases will be binary compatible with their major number. However, I don't recall any major changes with gcc & glibc. Is there some other change that would make this release not be binary compatible with RH8?

    --
    Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
  9. Re:why do subscribers get it ahead by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Additionally, Redhat wants to make some money and the subscription model isn't a bad one. If you want to be the last on the block to have it, you don't have to pay anything. But if ya want managed updates, early access, and whatever other perks they throw in then ya pay the fee.

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
  10. Are they going to continue to goof up KDE? by Greg151 · · Score: 2, Insightful


    After being a loyal Redhat user since 1997 (When I switched from Slackware), I am probably going to move on to SUSE, or Debian, based on RH's crappy implementation of KDE. I am not going to pay good money ( Yes, I usually buy the box set) for a distro that does not include an up to date, correct implementation of KDE. And don't get me started on Apt get vs. RPM.

    Greg

  11. Re:Scam by bmetzler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sounds like a scam to get more people to register with RHN just so you can be the first on the block to have RH 9.

    Um, I wouldn't call selling a legitimate product a scam. You seem to believe that Redhat is obligated to provide ISO's for you free. Why?

    -Brent
  12. Re:This leaves RHCE's in the brown smelly stuff by YellowBook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're a RHCE, the release schedule of RHAS is probably more relevant to you than the release schedule of RedHat's regular Linux distro...

    --
    The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
    Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
  13. Seems strange by ikekrull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I bought Redhat 8.0 a few weeks ago (it had been out for some time before that, of course) and have been pretty impressed with the completeness of the package and the work they have done on adding some consistency to the configuration apps bundled.

    However, I can't really see what Redhat are going to put in this release to justify a +1 version upgrade.

    I agree with other posters that frequent version changes will threaten the release of 'industry standard' apps on the RH Linux platform, and as such Linux in general because of the perceived volatility of the environment.

    However, strong sales of 8.0 might have given Redhat the impression that consumers look favourably on 'integer' releases, when really I think 8's popularity was almost entirely due to the well-publicised 'out of the box' antialiased fonts and UI work. If it was called 7.4 it would still have been very popular for these reasons.

    It would be nice to see Redhat give a clear rationale behind it's numbering scheme and clear up the confusion that obviously reigns in this area.

    --
    I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
    1. Re:Seems strange by redhat421 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think that the version number bump is due to the fact that they are changing the glibc that ships with 9 to 2.3.1. I think that RedHat changes major version numbers when they produce a version that may break backwards compatiblity.

      Dont think that this is all bad, the new glibc will have Native Posix Threds among other things.

  14. A barrel of random thoughts... by VFVTHUNTER · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Redhat seem to have forgotten that many people won't use a *.0 release...now I've got to wait till October to upgrade my 7.3 box :(

    Also, many commerical apps - for instance Franz's Allegro CL, which I use all day - won't support 9.0 for a while (they've just got around to supporting 8.0 this month).

    Doing this to be at the same number as Slack??? Why not just switch to a sideways 8 and be done with that lame sort of one-upmanship already?(yeah, you're right - Volkerding would release "Slackware Infinity plus 2" - so then you'd release "Redhat Infinity plus Infinity").

    Finally, a note to the RH people reading (bero-RH used to respond to all of my posts here on /. , but you guys kind of terminally pissed him off):

    WTF is up with Metacity?

    You put a window manager on your distro that doesn't even have a webpage? Many of us loyal RH users had gotten quite used to Sawfish. So used to it, in fact, that I had used GIMP to create many of my own themes.

    So I was unpleasantly surprised, upon installing 8.0, to find that you guys had once again skipped a version number. What were you thinking? Didn't you you guys learn anything from the gcc-2.96 fiasco? (read the very bottom of the page). With 8.0 you've done it again - SF's sourceforge site has the most recent version at 1.2, yet somehow something named sawfish-2.0 made it into your distro. I frankly wouldn't care if your "2.0" worked; but whatever genius in NC decided to "upgrade" it forgot to also upgrade the sawfish-themer. The problem is that you also changed your entire font structure, so that SF2 barfed at my TTF bankgothic fonts. And then I had no themer to change it. Editing theme.jl by hand is a pain.

    Now don't get me wrong. Metacity is a great WM. The fact that it uses XML is quite cool. And Havoc is a great programmer. But the fact that you switched WM's on us, and switched to essentially a wholly undocumented WM (there are pages now but none at release and really few for the first few months) is unacceptable.

    Now I've kind of gone off on a tangent here, but I'm using a simple example to illustrate a very important point: Whomever is making the UI decisions at RH needs to stop it. I submit to you that some software companies do this thing called research - they find out what their users are using, and then make their products acceptable to them. Yeah, I know, I'm one of few people who customizes his own saw themes. So at this point I will also remind you that with 8.0 you took the terminal icon off of the desktop and the menubar and hid it 3 or 4 levels deep in the menu.

    And a litany of other things - my point is that each release should have me sighing relaxing sighs of "Oh, this is nice," but instead every April and October I find myself feeling ever more uncomfortable and having to re-learn your entire distro. And don't tell me this is "innovation" - I know progress when I see it, and this isn't it.

    On a better note, for the day or two that I did use 8.0, the fonts were beautiful - if you guys can hurry up and create an upgrade that I can live with, I'll love you for it.

  15. Hope 9.1 is out before the end of the year... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope they get a stable & mature 9.x release out by the end of the year, like 9.1 or 9.2, before the EOL cycle for 7.x systems.

    My 7.3 system is pretty mature. Moving from a well-patched x.3 system to a immature x.0 system seems like a potential can of worms.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  16. Hmmmm, by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This means that, going by the "never use a .0 RH convention", the latest stable release will still be 7.3.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  17. Sucks for RHCEs by totallygeek · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I got certified at 7.2. Going to 9 this quick makes my certification go out, meaning I will need to shell out about $1000 to take the onsite proficiency tests again.

    I am not overly pleased about this. The changes from 7.2 to 8.0 were not overly significant in my opinion, and 9.0 isn't going to be that different from 8.0. How could it be? There has not been enough time between them for major kernel changes or radical security modelling to alter, etc.

  18. Red Hat by n0dez · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When I read your subject I thought you were going to say Red Hat is the same as Microsoft, which is not true. I agree with you. Red Hat has become sucessesfully thanks to their hard work. No monopolies, ... And they well always have enough competency to face. And they aren't focused on working on their distro, they are focus on bringing Linux to the top!! RPM are used by many distros., etc Don't hate big companies because are big. Don't buy a product because it comes from a big company such as Microsoft. n0dez

  19. Re:This leaves RHCE's in the brown smelly stuff by DrXym · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The sad part is that under the surface Red Hat has harrdly changed in 7.x, 8.0 and neither probably in 9.0. Package versions have been bumped up, bugs have been fixed, and there are small differences here or there but for the most part, there is little to surprise anyone who has used 7.x in upgrading.


    While that is not necessarily a bad thing, it does make you wonder what they'll do with RHCEs. Are they expected to pay out $$$$ to learn about the new window dressing and a couple of package changes or perhaps there should some kind of 'booster' certification which costs much less and makes their RHCE good for a few more years.

  20. No! No! No! PREMIUM services are necessary. by DavittJPotter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And it's shit like this that undermines companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, and other open-source companies.

    Red Hat Network & the Mandrake Club, etc., exist so the people who are willing to *PAY A PREMIUM* receive better or more prioritized service.

    There are so many reasons this is wrong. By freeloading off of RHN, you're effectively telling Red Hat "Hey, we're not willing to pay for a product that you've spent time and money on. Since it's GPL, we're gonna get it for free anyway."

    Red Hat spends time and money improving Linux, and sharing with the community. Whether or not you use their distro, like their politics, or whatnot, "Red Hat Linux" is pretty much what most people who've HEARD the word Linux think of.

    By stealing the link and posting it to Freenet, you're cheating the people who paid a premium for early access.

    Look at it this way: Just how much would you giggle if you placed an order and put down a deposit for a new Harley Davidson (Ferrari, Hummer, what the fuck ever), and someone was able to get their bike before you, without paying a deposit, because their buddy works for the dealership - making your wait longer?

    Sorry to jump all over your ass, but Open Source companies NEED people willing and able to pay a premium to receive premium service. It improves public perception and a company's willingness to stay in business.

    Freenet doesn't keep developers in Mountain Dew.

    --
    "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
  21. Re:No! No! No! PREMIUM services are necessary. by Sanity · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And it's shit like this that undermines companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, and other open-source companies.
    Red Hat Network & the Mandrake Club, etc., exist so the people who are willing to *PAY A PREMIUM* receive better or more prioritized service.
    Those that want to financially reward Redhat or Mandrake for their efforts should be able to, but there is nothing wrong with someone doing what they can to make GPL'd code more available to everyone else. Remember that RedHat did not write most of the code in the product they are distributing, which is fine, but there *is* a price to be paid for that - and that price is that anyone can place their stuff on Freenet. All is fair in love, war, and business.