On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 05:13:32PM -0500, Ray Bowles wrote: > *** On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 at 4:20am Paul Iadonisi shared this with the class::
[snip] > Ok, I have to admit (and maybe someone caught this already) I was being a > bit of a hypocrite. By this I mean I was saying bashing M$ wasn't cool > (at least here) while I was being harsh on RH in my example. I was a bit > hot headed and I always get that way because, as you said and I > agree. Software development isn't an easy job and mistakes are made. Maybe [snip] I've been guilty of twitchy knee at times as well. No real harm done, since I don't think this list has been overrun with newbie Linux users looking for help. At least not yet ;-). We do need to be civil in how we deal with each other, especially on a list like this where there likely *will* be new Linux users just looking for help. We don't want to turn them away. I hope I wasn't too harsh. I tried my best to be civil, but direct. [snip] > Don't really want to get into it, but I was looking into the future of > what "could" happen. I was basing it on some blunders they've made in a > few releases (usually bundling bad software). I think the most recent > dissapointment was (and I'm not an avid user so cut me some slack on the > version) the release of 7.1. Wasn't that plagued with problems that could > have been avoided had they not wanted to get it out there so fast? Anyway [snip] I think you may be referring to 7.0, as I don't remember anything that caught the public's wrath in 7.1. The 7.0 issue was the kgcc / gcc 2.96 fiasco that was largely fud. I do agree that they shouldn't have *called* it 2.96, since that gave the impression that was an official release. But then, what should they have called it? It was really 3.0 even though it came from that cvs branch, but it was 2.95 either (which, I believe, was continuing bug fixes on a different branch). I refer you to http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html for further information. I found it convicing enough. Your mileage may vary. Personally, I went straight from 6.2 to 7.1 except on one test system where I was trying out 7.0. Today, if you look at the default install for 7.2, for example, you'll find that Red Hat has take several very good steps at making the default install more secure. They don't start services unnecessarily that listen on network interfaces other than the loopback interface (sendmail, for instance). There are, however, a HUGE number of updates for 7.2. More, I think, than any other release in just four short months. That can be either a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it. It seemed that all of a sudden, they were paying more attention than anyone else. But then, what's with so *many* updates to the foomatic printer stuff, for example? And sometimes a new one came out the next day after one was just released. *sigh* Nobody's perfect. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
