Hi there,
it is totally funny, how technical based discussion, and one of those
was the discussion wether using a unpublished non existent compiler and
a non existent release was a good idea or not , became suddenly a type
of self presentating thread.
> And severely biased groundless pointless Red Hat bashing does?
It is, rather a fun read though.
Mike, Igmar and whomever thinks that adding the finger pointing to this
are showing this here.
For you Mike,
do you think that, from the support point of view using this compiler
set was a good idea ? You suddenly have and will have more of this
request for support on the lkml like the initial "bashing (bending your
words here) the "what's up with redhat"" but merely because there has
been no good communication of what is included and why and how to get
around the limitations by redhat.
It is fact that the compiler isn't published by gcc. Maybe cygnus is
supporting this "made up release" but gcc is not as far as I know. There
is simply no thing as a gcc-2.96, and it doesn't matter wether it is
binary or source compatible or not. The users think hey, here is a
release redhat have and others don't. This is simply the way one would
expect from Redmond based companies. Same with the glibc.
And I do have some support for the people arguing in some kind of
conspiracy based thinking that redhat tries to "fork" GNU/Linux in kind
of way because of their market influence at the moment and therefore
extending this market power into the future with an incompatible
distribution.
People from redhat here talk about "innovation" but hey, they didn't
even were able to get the fixes for the libraries enlightenment was
based on into in a timely manner. And users were stick with the old
buggy ones.
There are a lot other examples here. Take the Duron (Thunderbird?)
issue.
Same stuff here.
So I really take Alan's and others words (and credibility) for it that
redhat-gcc-2.96 is worth the hassle, smae as the beta--redhat-glibc2.2.
But sometimes redhat really makes me wonder, especially looking into
their arguing (and that of it's employees) why certain things aren't
integrated in their distribution (reiserfs anybody?) Especially since
some people are desperately trying to banish it from the kernel, beeing
there technical arguments or not. It really is funny that some things
don't get integrated while others which are unstable and highly
experimental are.
Sometimes I think that there are more political reasons than technical.
It is a big step for a company that was always using rather old versions
of the included software now is going out and using
"beta-stuff-in-terms-or-releases" in their new distribution.
Is it now the time for marketeers ?
What is, however, is fascinating me is that the tidal waves are getting
higher and easily personal here. That seems to prove that there is more
into this than just technical reasoning.
With best regards
Michael Meding
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST