On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Chuck Mead wrote:
> responded to their critics in a very valid way... now if a veteran
> claiming to be an expert wants to criticize them then why not
> criticize something that was/is not a response/improvement to
> previous criticism
OK, how about the fix they gave for the ls vs. sort disparity in 7.0?
Yes, Trond, I do understand that glibc started the whole thing. Every
other distro allowed for that, at least in the English installs.
In v7.0, unmodified, sort produced a listing that ignored leading dots
and case. ls was still POSIX compliant.
So in 7.1, unmodified, sort AND "ls -a" ignore case and leading dots.
Looks just like DOS. Breaks scripts at an amazing rate. At least they
left the dot files hidden.
Or, what security issues induced RedHat to begin including a networked
host's FQDN in the loopback line of /etc/hosts? Given that a properly
configured system works just fine with the FQDN on its own line with its
IP, I just don't get it.
My point is/has been that RedHat is not the only Linux (or Unix) under
pressure to improve security, to be more easily used and configured. It
does seem that RedHat cares least about preserving consistency of usage
with other systems. I'll grant that the response to criticism was
timely, and solved the perceived problem. I do believe that some babies
are getting thrown out with the bathwater.
See ya later,
Doc
_______________________________________________
Seawolf-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
