No subject

the first time a version of GCC has had binary incompatibility changes.
In fact, it seems like it's regular occurance.

>When Microsoft has done this, the Linux community has crucified them...
>yet, when RHAT does this, it's somehow OK because it's Linux... uhhh... no. 

The difference being that Microsoft won't recognise the problem, and in fact
will often deny it's existance until THEY decide to release a mega-patch.
When was the last time Microsoft fixed a resource usage problem quickly
enough that users of the software wouldn't have a chance to run into it.

You point out it could cause a machine to get wedged in a couple of weeks.
They released the fix in under a week and made it well known.  How is that
like Microsoft?

>Exactly... I don't.

Why do you think you're qualified to comment on the RedHat 7.0 release if
you haven't used it?

>Have you actually done this, or is that something from their webpage? If
>so, I'd agree that it is, but considering I couldn't even install RHAT 5.2
>on a 486, much less get it updated to 6.2... I dunno...

Just to clarify, there's nothing preventing 5.2 from running on a 486 -- I
have installed 5.2 on several 486s to run as low-end web servers, and they
do a great job of it.

>I use RedHat. I like RedHat. I defend RedHat against those crazy Debian
>folk at CPLUG... except for RedHat x.0 releases.

Prejudice is a terrible thing.  It could lead you to installing 6.1 and not
installing 7.0...

>I find it extremely disconcerting to see someone so forcefully and blindly
>promote RHAT without stepping back to look at the problems and issues that

Interesting you'd say this.  It's being defended by people with relatively
high levels of experience with RedHat 7.0...  How is it THEM who are
blindly defending it?

Sean
-- 
 Hack the government.
 VOTE!  November 7, 2000
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <jafo at tummy.com>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python