Well, then I don't have any problems and was mistaken about my initial assumptions.
If only they provided minimal install options (why the heck do I need the Japanese font?) similar to Mandrake 8.2, then I'd be happier. But I'm just whining. In any case, I'm deploying/administrating Linux on a production public server and getting paid for it. Can it get any better than this? :) John Hebert --- Paul Rushing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Redhat is listed on the LSB website as a > contributor. Redhat follows > (most) of FHS 2.2. LSB uses RPM for package > installation. Redhat's > runlevels match LSB. I guess I'm not seeing the > problems you are talking > about. Any specifics? > > I haven't seen any distribution that completely > adheres to LSB, yet. > Debian doesn't, and I've seen lots of arguments on > the debian lists about > how much they should change to accomodate LSB. > > > > ulp. Now I've stirred the penguinmonster... > > > > Basically, my peeve is that RH isn't behind the > LSB > > project, and use slightly different UNIX > conventions > > that other LSB backers. Why not? Or should I just > not > > care about that? > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
