|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-06-19 22:25:21
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>>We decided (not too long ago) that we use the same numbering as the >>>>Kernel folks. >>> >>>So that means that 0.5 should be a development release since it's an odd >>>number? Now I'm even more confused! :-) >> >>The release number 0.5 was before we made that decission. Smartass ;-) > > > I've been called "smartass" by a lot of different people, > for some reason ... :-) > > </smartass> As you probably figured, I hear the very same word a lot, too. > Let me try and be serious for a moment here. > > If you want to go with a kernel-like version numbering scheme, then the > next release of Devil Linux should be 1.0 or greater. The first stable > kernel was 1.0, and I consider Devil Linux to be very stable, don't you? Yes it is. We already made the decission that the next release will be 1.0. I think that was not much before you joined the project. Before releasing beta1, I'll change the version to 1.0b1. We didn't announce that alot, to draw some more attention when we finally do it. > In fact my very first Linux distro in 1994 had a 1.0 kernel on it! > (and I've still got the CD to prove it. :) I think I shouldn't mention that my first version was an early 2.2.x ;-) > A highly respected Linux GURU ask me at a recent LUG meeting why so many > stable open source packages keep their versions numbers under 1.0. > (well, that's paraphrasing, but I want to keep it clean for this list :) > and he has a very good point. Why is that? I, for one, don't know. That's for a very easy reason: The maintainer doesn't think it's already good enough to earn the release number 1.0. We always want to achieve more, but usually forgett what we already achieved. > I suppose future replies to this thread should go on the developers > mailing list.... DONE cya Heiko |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2003-06-20 07:29:15
|
Bruce Smith wrote: > > So, when/what-version was your first Linux? Not 1.0 but 1.2. >>>Don't get me wrong, Linux has always been extremely stable, even back in >>>the 1.0 days, but it was very rough around the edges, and there wasn't >>>much software available for it (compared to today). >>> >>>I should send you a copy of my 1.0 CD so you can really appreciate how >>>good we have it now! :-) But you may have to find a 386 to run it on. >>>I'm not sure it would run on modern hardware... >> >>Have you tried vmware? > > No, I haven't tried it on anything since the mid 90's. > But, that's not a bad idea. I'll have to dig it up and play. I guess you then have to play with the "operating system" knob in the vmware configurator. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-06-20 12:37:51
|
> > So, when/what-version was your first Linux? > > Not 1.0 but 1.2. Not bad. Here's something I find interesting: Even with my 1.0/1994 start with Linux, there are TWO other members of my local Linux Users Group who have been using Linux longer than I have! On guy started with a 0.9something. I'm a member of the most active LUG in the USA, possibly the world. We meet, and have presentations, EVERY WEEK (except for major holidays). We've been doing that for at least six years, and still going strong. We have about 250 people from all over the world on our main mailing list, and we average about 30 people at each meeting. We have brought in guest speakers from IBM, SuSE, TurboLinux and other major Linux corporations. We are currently flying a Ximian developer in from Boston to give a presentation at an upcoming meeting. We have LTSP and wireless networks running at our meeting location. We're currently building an AsteriskPBX box, and used to run a Linux based cyber-cafe until the building was sold out from under us. We have a booth at a traveling computer sale this Sunday to promote Linux, and we even produce our own Linux distribution (created by your's truly :) Sorry for the off-topic plug, but I'm really proud of these guys, and I'm proud to be the sysadmin and co-webmaster of the web server. So, if you know of anyone wanting to learn more about Linux have them check out our presentation notes from prior meetings, and/or sign up for our mailing list(s) and learn by listening and asking questions. One last plug: If anyone is learning LDAP, head to the web site right now. One of our officers created the best OpenLDAP documentation available anywhere. He's currently talking with O'Reilly about making it into a book. Currently available as PDF freely downloadable from our web site: http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/ > >>>Don't get me wrong, Linux has always been extremely stable, even back in > >>>the 1.0 days, but it was very rough around the edges, and there wasn't > >>>much software available for it (compared to today). > >>> > >>>I should send you a copy of my 1.0 CD so you can really appreciate how > >>>good we have it now! :-) But you may have to find a 386 to run it on. > >>>I'm not sure it would run on modern hardware... > >> > >>Have you tried vmware? > > > > No, I haven't tried it on anything since the mid 90's. > > But, that's not a bad idea. I'll have to dig it up and play. > > I guess you then have to play with the "operating system" knob in the > vmware configurator. The base system will probably run, but I have serious doubts about getting X to run on any video card available today. I doubt VMware has drivers for the XFree86 version that comes on this distro! ;-) - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-06-19 22:37:19
|
> > If you want to go with a kernel-like version numbering scheme, then the > > next release of Devil Linux should be 1.0 or greater. The first stable > > kernel was 1.0, and I consider Devil Linux to be very stable, don't you? > > Yes it is. > We already made the decission that the next release will be 1.0. I think > that was not much before you joined the project. Good! Guess my "move to 1.0" speech wasn't necessary. :-) > Before releasing beta1, I'll change the version to 1.0b1. We didn't > announce that alot, to draw some more attention when we finally do it. OK, I won't tell anyone. :-) > > In fact my very first Linux distro in 1994 had a 1.0 kernel on it! > > (and I've still got the CD to prove it. :) > > I think I shouldn't mention that my first version was an early 2.2.x ;-) Youngster! :-) You really missed out on the tough years of Linux! Don't get me wrong, Linux has always been extremely stable, even back in the 1.0 days, but it was very rough around the edges, and there wasn't much software available for it (compared to today). I should send you a copy of my 1.0 CD so you can really appreciate how good we have it now! :-) But you may have to find a 386 to run it on. I'm not sure it would run on modern hardware... - BS |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2003-06-19 22:49:10
|
Bruce Smith wrote: > > Youngster! :-) You really missed out on the tough years of Linux! Yes daddy ;-) > Don't get me wrong, Linux has always been extremely stable, even back in > the 1.0 days, but it was very rough around the edges, and there wasn't > much software available for it (compared to today). > > I should send you a copy of my 1.0 CD so you can really appreciate how > good we have it now! :-) But you may have to find a 386 to run it on. > I'm not sure it would run on modern hardware... Have you tried vmware? -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-06-20 00:35:20
|
> > Youngster! :-) You really missed out on the tough years of Linux! > > Yes daddy ;-) So, when/what-version was your first Linux? > > Don't get me wrong, Linux has always been extremely stable, even back in > > the 1.0 days, but it was very rough around the edges, and there wasn't > > much software available for it (compared to today). > > > > I should send you a copy of my 1.0 CD so you can really appreciate how > > good we have it now! :-) But you may have to find a 386 to run it on. > > I'm not sure it would run on modern hardware... > > Have you tried vmware? No, I haven't tried it on anything since the mid 90's. But, that's not a bad idea. I'll have to dig it up and play. - BS |