[lug] Redhat 7.0

Nate Duehr nate at natetech.com
Sun Oct 22 14:28:31 MDT 2000

If memory serves, that wasn't Alan Cox.  That was some other RH guy who
attempted to defend their actions on SlashDot.

He stuck to defending the allegations that RH was not acting like Microsoft,
which was a perfectly defendable position.  They weren't.

He just barely touched on the GCC thing, and I believe your note summarized
what he said, just fine.

Either way, I guess it's all water under the bridge and if I could convince
the PHB's at work to switch to Debian, or better yet for some of the
machines, OpenBSD, I'd do it tomorrow.  :)


> From: llornkcor <ljp at llornkcor.com>
> Organization: llornkcor rocknroll
> Reply-To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:59:14 -0600
> To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> Subject: Re: [lug] Redhat 7.0
>> RedHat = Guinness -- They were drinking too much of it the night
>> they took the GCC snapshot and decided "it's good enough, ship
>> it!".
> I have read that Alan Cox said, that they tested the 'new' gcc
> extensively before shipping. I trust Alan Cox as a extroidinary
> kernel hacker. I am sure that he would have compilained loudly to
> his employers, if gcc 2.96 was just "good enough" (even though, to
> compile the kernel, RH added kgcc). After reading that statement
> he made (I can't find the exact text), I changed my mind about it.
> But I still wont be upgrading to it anytime soon.
> LP
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug

More information about the LUG mailing list