similar to: Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > This is not really true. We will probably never have everything that FC > has as added features ... but CentOS-4 has several added features and we > have been out for only a 3 months (so, not required to wait a year). Oh, sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant by "wait a year" was the time from the first .0 or

From: R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> > Bryan - Please don't overstate this and make a problem where > none exists. There is an infinity of choices of which you > list three ... > Nor does one _have_ to 'get involved' with either the > RH-Fedora or Centos project to do effective distribution > building, or add-on packaging. There are independent

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Thanks - as you probably know, the long-winded discussion isn't > really about CIPE specifically so much as the philosophy behind > bundling a few thousand things together and then trying to > please anyone with a blanket policy about maintaining backwards > compatibility vs bug fixes vs new features. You just can't

From: Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com> > It's a little more than that. I find few people who consider RedHat to > be a Demon Evil or that they can't do anything right, but I can > understand the concern about some of their decisions which have made > life difficult for (granted) a few, and it's not really helpful to > demonize those who complain, as Bryan has

From: Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> > I have a real problem with this thread. It seems as if, according to some, > someone can only be with or against Red Hat. Yes, that was my major complaint too. > I'm sure Red Hat has made stupid decisions, has adopted buggy software and > are responsible for some of the headaches people have had. And I'm sure > even Red Hat

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > No, I am looking for a solution that provides what a typical user needs, > not what a particular vendor feels like supporting this week. I didn't > really want this to be about motives for vendor's business decisions but > I think Johnny Hughes nailed it in saying the push for 2.6 was because > SLES 9 had it. Their

Even I've left this thread. I guess we're all waiting for Lee to turn Blue. ;-> Or is it Red (Hat)? ;-> Okay Lee, we all agree, Red Hat makes stupid decisions, adopts buggy software - especially the kernel and Red Hat is to blame for the decisions in the kernel, and also stupidly backports fixes instead of adopting newer versions with the fixes. And there is absolutely no need for

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > I'm still wondering about that... If anyone except Linus himself > even suggested that changing kernel interfaces in a way that would > break device drivers was a good thing, I can't imagine the reaction. > I could see that the changes through 2.4 were improving things, but > is there anything that is measurably better in

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > If you believe that, you have to believe that Red Hat's programmers > are always better than the original upstream program author. How do you assert that? It has _nothing_ to do with my statement. You keep thinking there is this absolute "black/white" on why developers, vendors, etc... do this or that. There are reasons

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Yes, but... whose choice was it to ship 2.6 with lots of broken > and omitted stuff when 2.4 works better for many things? Again, 2-2-2, 6-6-6 At some point, Red Hat has to start the new series for "early adopters." That means being the first to adopt the new GLibC, GCC, kernel, etc... Looking at just the GLibC 2+ generations

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Agreed. But note that the standards are set long before that... ??? By "standard" what do you mean. ??? Linux's history has been notorious for variance from ANSI, NIST, POSIX and GNU standards. Yes, far less than Microsoft and even some UNIX vendors, but there are still major issues today with this. When developers try

From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>" > You are indeed correct (I must have been looking at the RHEL3 dir**) First off, that's now 2 strikes for me. Small ones considering the context well outside of the points, but still it hurts my credibility. This is one of the things I hate about meta-discussions, at least how I approach them. Sometimes I just need to learn

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > RHEL-4 shipped with MySQL 4.1.x (and has a 3.23.58 client to work with > older databases) ... the latest SRPMS are mysql-4.1.10a-1.RHEL4.1.src.rpm > and mysqlclient10-3.23.58-4.RHEL4.1.src.rpm. You are indeed correct (I must have been looking at the RHEL3 dir**):

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > IBM has since totally changed their thoughts with regards to GNU/Linux. Actually, their cut-off of Monterey had everything to do with their current change in strategy on Linux back in 2000+. Monterey was established before IBM's interest in GNU/Linux. After IBM realized that it could use an economical complement in Linux, it saw

From: Feizhou <feizhou at graffiti.net> > I still remember the FIRST Linux GUI installer for a Linux distro. It > came on the Caldera Openlinux 2.2. It worked. It was really nice. Actually, the first distro with a GUI installer was Yggdrasil, circa 1993. It installed on 8MB of RAM using X and Athena/FVWM. > The Novell guys that were behind Caldera deserve plenty of respect for

From: Dag Wieers > Sorry to interrupt but he was describing how you appeared in previous > postings. And I have to say that I felt the same way reading some of your postings. Really? Then I'll re-read them since there's been a second confirmation. Just know that I wasn't trying to make it about good/bad. I'm just trying to make the point that companies aren't just

From: Collins Richey > Sounds pretty religious-based to me. > IBM=bad > HP,Sun, RedHat, SCO=good. > OTOH, from some of your comments, Novell=better. Are you really that shallow? IBM is our partner, not our friend. Sun has its interests too, and has 5 different entities of focus, which vary. Red Hat is a tale of two companies, cut-throat business combined with GPL-analness (like

Maciej Zenczykowski wrote: > is there stuff in livna which isn't in dag/dries > hmm... will have to take a look Preston Crawford wrote: > I haven't found much that I needed that wasn't in dag's repository. > Only two items. Here's what I've found. > gtkpod - for iPods, obviously > xine > mplayer > mplayer-plugin > bittorrent > gkrellm >

I wrote part of a FAQ last November, and if you're interested in the breakdown of GCC, GLibC and kernel adoption since Red Hat Linux 4.0, you'll want to read this: http://www.geocities.com/thebs413/RH-Distribution-FAQ-3.html I've been loosely working on a "Linux Configuration Management" book covering Red Hat distributions since. I might update this FAQ if I have

[ context from the previous thread ] On Saturday 28 May 2005 14:41, Collins Richey wrote: > On 5/28/05, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote: > > Sure. LVM. > I'm curious about this. At work we haven't finished our evaluation of > RHEL3/RHEL4 (CentOS is out of the question, since SLA is king here). > Most of our servers and desktops are RH9 legacy, and we use LVM