* Bernhard Rosenkraenzer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Tom Gilbert wrote:
>
> > I'd like to use this forum to attempt to get a straight answer from
> > Redhat on this one :)
>
> First of all, I'm not responsible for the enlightenment RPM, so I'm not
> the best person to pick this up.
>
> > Redhat 6.2 is shipping with an extremely, painfully out of date version
> > of enlightenment (http://www.enlightenment.org)
>
> This is intentional: 0.16.x adds a load of bloat^H^H^H^H^Hfeatures that
That's just FUD, and I can't believe it came from someone who should
know better.
> doesn't make sense in the GNOME environment (and Red Hat Linux uses
> enlightenment only in GNOME by default).
> 0.16 uses up more memory than 0.15 without adding many things that make
You've benchmarked this? Please tell me how, as I promise you that E16
is *massively* more streamlined than E15, and that all the new feature
are completely toggleable, and don't make any memory imprint if not
toggled on. Please don't just make stuff up.
> sense when you're running a desktop environment on top of it (all the
> window managers' menus etc are superfluous when you're running KDE or
> GNOME).
Then don't install them with the .spec file :) The menus are totally
configurable.
> > I have read the explanation on the site, which is basically "we couldn't
> > be bothered to configure it, so we stuck with the old version", and am
> > rather annoyed as a result :)
>
> Adapting the load of patches we're applying to 0.15 to 0.16 being quite a
> lot of extra work.
ASK ME AND I WILL DO IT :)
One of you guys only had to email e-develop saying what you needed and I'd
have got right on it. Do you people know how to communicate?
> > Since when has Redhat's policy been "if it won't fit out of the box, we
> > won't tweak it or ask for it to be tweaked"?
>
> The policy is "We ship the version that we think makes most sense to
> ship".
Oh. So why ship the version with more bugs and incompatibilies?
> > Explanation from a Redhat person please? Why were we specifically
> > targetted not to get our latest version into the distro? Did we do
> > something wrong somehow?
>
> A lot of people could complain about the same thing - we're not shipping
> XFree86 4.0 (for obvious reasons), readline 4.x (binary incompatibility),
> gcc 2.95.x (binary incompatibility), tcl/tk 8.3 (binary incompatibility)
> or kernel 2.3.99 (for obvious reasons) either.
Well, E16 is not affected by binary incompatibility, the instability of
the current XFree 4, or the frightening kernel memory leak present in
2.3.99 :). Those examples are irrelavent and unfair.
E16 *adds* features and *fixes* bugs. PERIOD :)
> > And finally, every support request for 0.15.5 that comes from a redhat
> > 6.2 user will be forwarded to this list.
>
> Feel free to do that; better yet, put them to
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla so the developers responsible for it
> can fix them.
That was me being faceatious ;) I wouldn't really spam everyone like
that =P
> LLaP
> bero
Tom.
--
.------------------------------------------------------.
.^. | Tom Gilbert, England | www.linuxbrit.co.uk |
/V\ |----------------------| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
// \\ | Sites I recommend: `-------------------------------|
/( )\ | www.freshmeat.net www.enlightenment.org slashdot.org |
^^-^^ `---------------------ICQ 65348629---------------------'
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
