RH 8.0 woes

[David Mandala]

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.

They've done it with compiler versions, gnome versions and other things.
His problems are VERY Red Hat specific, they could have shipped stable
code that worked or choosen to ship known unstable code, they choose
unstable. Nothing wrong with that, except that unless you have
experience with Red Hat and know never to use a x.0 release you tend to 
expect it to work, which when it does notit tends to give people bad
experiences.

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
always borked up and requires waiting for months for it to become stable
or you need to wait for the x.1 release.

On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 07:21, daz@undertaker.homeip.net wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2002, David Mandala wrote:
> 
> > Actually the lession to learn here is NEVER use an x.0 release from Red
> > Hat. They ALWAYS break the x.0 releases. I've been using Red Hat since
> > 1995 or so and I've learned the hard way never never use a x.0 release.
> > Switch back to the 7.3 release and most will be well, wait for the 8.1
> > release which will work quite nicely I'm sure.
> 
> ack....not to step on anyones toes or to piss anyone off, but the above 
> comments really bug me.   Most of the problems he is experiencing are not 
> redhat specific.  They are gnome2 specific.   They are known issues with 
> gnome 2.  They can all be resolved by downgrading to gnome1.4 (which, I 
> believe, redhat 8 ships with).  
> 
> Although I agree the x.0 arent the most polished releases from redhat, 
> generally they do work :)
> 
> 
> my .02.  if theres change, donate to the EFF :)
> 
> David
> > >     I need an IRQ client available all day long in my
> > >     daily work, because I telecommute. I suppose I
> > >     could go to licq, but I hate it.
> 
> doh.  i think I borked my earlier response.  I read 'IRC' not 'IRQ' (would 
> that be 'ICQ' by any chance?)  if so, disregard my 'xchat' comment :)
-- 
David Mandala <davidm@them.com>
THEM Productions