RH 8.0 woes

Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:23:56 -0600 (CST)

On 11 Nov 2002, David Mandala wrote:

> Sorry the truth bugs you, Since I've used Red Hat since they became a
> company I do speak from experience. They have a history of trying to
> force the latest cutting edge packages they deem necessary and the hell
> with the havoc.

its only as truthfull as the following statment: "Microsoft NT4 is C2 
certified".  Only partially true and only in particular phases of the moon 
:)  to rebutt some specifics mentioned below:

gcc:  rh is a company.  2.95 did not offer things their customers wanted.  
they shipped 2.96.  it had the requirements the customers wanted.  They 
also included a 2.95 compat library.   shortly there after, many 
distributions started shipping 2.96.  (maybe 'many' is too strong of a 
term.  off the top of my head I can only think of mandrake....hmmm)  most 
of the problems came from code that was not compliant code, which 2.95 
easily forgave whereas 2.96 did not.  

attitude: if they had a 'to hell with the havoc' attitude, i dont think 
they would be a market leader with linux.   I'm pretty sure they dont care
as much about things that will break with non-redhat 
packages/distributions, but thats why we have competition. 

gnome:  please give me the name of a major distro that had a release 
come out recently that is not shipping gnome2? (debian doesnt count.   not 
that they are bad, they are just *really stable* ;)  

other things:  someone has to take the first step, dont they?  otherwise 
we would all be at kernel 2.0.x :)

force:  umm...unless you work for an ideal company, nobody is forcing 
linux on you, let alone upgrading to the latest and (arguably) greatest as 
soon as it comes out.   Its not like WM8 where their liscense says they 
can do whatever they want to your server whenever they want.

> 
> They've done it with compiler versions, gnome versions and other things.
> His problems are VERY Red Hat specific, they could have shipped stable

I'd say the problems are very a) gnome2 specific b) progress specific c) 
"you should've stuck to debian" specific :)

> While many parts of the Red Hat x.0 releases work they have NEVER
> shipped a fully functional x.0 release, not even close to it. It is

I agree.  mostly, anyway.  

anyway, please remember these are not attacks on you personally.  They are 
rebuttals to statements oft made about redhat that I view as wrong (have 
been using it since 5.x) from *my* experience.  I'm just a believer that 
fud is fud whether aimed at microsoft or anyone else.

David

-- 
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
--Darth Vader
---
  8:50am  up 47 days, 13:42,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00