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
(text/plain)