> however, heavily biased towards mandrake since I tried Red Hat 7 first, on
> which I could get not a damn thing (zip, printer, mounting other
partitions)
> to work, even when following the instructions in the official book. Or
the
> fact that half the power tools won't run under 7 (i've heard this is a
> problem with a broken glibc). I know that it's fixable, but is that my
job.
I'm running Redhat 7.1 and everything was detected and installed with out
problems on my box. But I've heard a lot of complaints about RedHat 7.0
were solved with the 7.1 as is common in X.0 editions as compared to later
revised versions of the main version number.
>
> but every mandrake install i do, everything is detected and effortless.
>
> not to mention that I've found their tech support to be impatient with
> non-enormus-corporate-server problems. just my exp.
>
I've recently contacted RedHat support with my simple problems on 2
different issues and got responce via the web in less then one business day.
As far as support issues are concerned C-Nets reviews favor Redhat over
Mandrake, but again I can't compare Mandrake support because this list is
the only form I qualify for since I've not actually bought mandrake since
7.1. However this list can't be beat in my opinion either. Right now I
think it's a horse apiece. I'm wondering about the kernel performance
issues since my boxes are considered i686's though with PIII 800+ speed.
That performance wise I need to compare somemore. However it is not
immediately obvious to me at this point. I almost thought Redhat loaded the
StarOffice 5.2 faster though.
