Reinhard Katzmann wrote:
Hi Antony!
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:23:31AM +1100, Antony Suter wrote:
glibc 2.1.92
I disagree, this version is highly patched by RH to get it working at
all. You have to be more specific WHY you want this beta version of glibc
included.
For one thing,
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
"Matthew R. Sprague" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
rh7 effect? :)
Are people still using their product? I thought Mandrake had put
them out of business.
Then -- I would be happy to hear some comparisons from third party,
between let's say
Hi Antony!
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:23:31AM +1100, Antony Suter wrote:
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
"Matthew R. Sprague" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
glibc 2.1.92
I disagree, this version is highly patched by RH to get it working at
all. You have to be more specific WHY you want this
Yo,
4. power (will an expert like the distro or not, e.g. is there enough
power tools/packages and so on)
5. stability (most of the packages work? don't work? proper basic
configs?)
What about you guys on Cooker -- can you tell us some words on each
category?
RedHat
salane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
are there any other mirrors of these files? It seems that the two are
overloaded.
rh7 effect? :)
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, you wrote:
salane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
are there any other mirrors of these files? It seems that the two are
overloaded.
rh7 effect? :)
Are people still using their product? I thought Mandrake had put them out of
business.
"Matthew R. Sprague" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
rh7 effect? :)
Are people still using their product? I thought Mandrake had put
them out of business.
Then -- I would be happy to hear some comparisons from third party,
between let's say RH7.0 and upcomming LM7.2 in terms of:
are there any other mirrors of these files? It seems that the two are
overloaded.
Salane --
If you have to ask you can't afford it.
