Re: [OT] Re: Which kernel (Linus or ac)?

[T. A.]

> That's odd, my Red Hat servers have been
> almost like appliances. Not perfect, but all
> the problems I've seen could be dealt with.

    Oh I could deal with all of the problems as well.  But after a good bit
of recompiling, patching, upgrading, backtracking the things done in the
"Redhat" way which many times don't match the man pages, as well as undoing
the "Redhat" way annoyances I just end up with a variation of my own hand
built distribution.  And once I have to replace the system experimental C
library and compiler it just get even more ridicules.

> I've seen worse problems in commercial
> unices, e.g. unixware - yuk - and hpux.

    I know.  Please don't remind me of UnixWare.  I buried that at my
clients' and companies' sites in the Linux 1.2.x days.

> x.0 release: New stuff, interesting, buggy
> x.1 release: A passable cleanup of the bugs in .0
> x.2 release: A smooth, polished, evolution of .1

    Well here's hoping that 7.2 is smooth and polished.  Especially since
Redhat has become the defacto standard and I'll probably be trying it out
again.

> (shrug) I had no idea it was alpha - it works
> well for me, and I'm a vi man.

    I never keep it around for long after I saw it crash a couple of times
on my first 7.0 or 7.1 box so I can't say much about its stability.  Besides
it was more the principal of the thing.  Why in the world use the alpha
version of a text editor when a perfectly good released version exists with
pretty much the same functionality.  One thing I did notice, if I remember
correctly.  Seamed that either the installed vim was crippled or had a bug
in reading my customized .vimrc file.  My custom options didn't get loaded
until I downloaded the latest 5.[89] source and recompiled myself a new
version.