Reason for the change

[Michael K. Johnson]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:14:34PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > Note that "use Red Hat Linux as a base for RHEL" means that
> > Red Hat Linux will need to remain absolutely stable, so people
> > don't have to be worried about losing value in Red Hat Linux...
> 
> If Red Hat Linux is absolutely stable doesn't that cut into revenues for
> RHEL?

I hate the word "stable" because it means different things to different
people...

I'm using the word "robust" for the Red Hat Linux project -- we are
trying to make robust software (though up-to-date) but we're trying to
keep up with new versions and will release new versions of software even
for security errata when that's the right thing to do (generally, when
that's the form the fix comes in from upstream).  A new version comes
out with new features and enough people are willing to help qualify it?
No reason not to release the new feature update, too!

Red Hat Enterprise Linux, by contrast, has very minimal changes within
a release -- one meaning of "stable" that is critical in an enterprise
environment.  Obviously they also care about "robust" as well.  Can
you imagine an enterprise deploying a new version of a major software
component because it is "fresher"?  That would be IS lunacy.  :-)

> Also if people in the RHLP community wanted to extend errata lifespan on
> their own for RHL - would red hat issue community-driven errata notices?

We haven't set policy here for sure.  Sporadic and incomplete updates
can be worse for overall security than none at all and an encouragement
to update.  This needs more thought.

michaelkjohnson

 "He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
 Linux Application Development                     -- Ben Franklin
 http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/