"T. A." wrote:
> 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
You may have a point with 7.0, but 7.1 was not
that bad - and in any case, just applying the RH
updates fixed the problems.
> 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.
To each his own - choice is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
> And once I have to replace the system experimental C
> library and compiler it just get even more ridicules.
Experimental? What you call experimental, I call (and
my customers call) fully functional and fully supported.
Using gcc-2.96 on the 40+ RH boxes I have scattered
around the southwest has shown no problems, despite
all the outrage from anti gcc-2.96 activists.
Here is a heads-up for the benefit of those wondering
about gcc-2.96:
http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html
cu
jjs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/