On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Adoram Rogel wrote:
> The fact that I am disappointed with *this* experience with RH5 is because of
> a specific problem that I have, and that I need my production network to keep
> on going with upgrading all the machines to glibc because of one machine.
> My entire network runs RH3.03, 4.1 and Slackware and is based on libc5.
> As much as I agree with the move to glibc, I need a gradual path, so that my
> operation will continue without a beep.
> Upgrading one machine at a time is the way for us.
I second and third that. Unfortunately, because you did _NOT_ provide
backward compatibility of any sort, I was unable to put 5.0 into
production. I _will_ _not_ put RH 5.1 or 5.2 or 5.x into production unless
I can figure out ways to support older libc5 programs that may never be
updated. (Not all linux software is freeware, surprise!) Going to 5.0
actually would have bankrupted me had I installed it on production systems
when it came out.
Once I get the round-tuit, I may figure out how to support the older
programs. It should be _possible_, given intelligent linkers. Heck, a
linker that reads a load map that says "for this program, use this
library" would work. If you did it right, it would even operate very
quickly and you would only pay the performance penalty at load time.
It is my opinion that RH lost sight of its market with 5.0, and will pay
for it (even if just a little) when 5.1 and 5.2 and 5.3 come out. People
will probably start coming back at around 5.4 and above, again IMO.
So, the good news is 4.2 is extreme quality, good enough to run a
business off of. I recommend actively selling it and supporting it.
bug
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
