[wplug] CMU installfest this Friday 7th Feb

[Vanco, Donald]

Alexandros Papadopoulos wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wednesday 05 February 2003 11:13, Vanco, Donald wrote:
>> Alexandros Papadopoulos wrote:
> <snip>
>>> I'm with you, I'm beginning to get fed up with RedHat and its
>>> "I-did-it-my-way" mentality.
>> 
>> 	Russ was correct - ALL distros from Red Hat that are ".0" releases
>> are KNOW to be buggy.  If you run it and have issues with it guess
>> 	what - that's expected. What, exactly, is Red Hats "
>> "I-did-it-my-way" mentality" - I'm really dying to know what that
>> means. 
> 
> By that I mean arbitrary choices that create incompatibilities with
> other distributions and/or distribution-neutral applications. gcc 2.96
> is a prime example, 
	Yes - that was bad.  Ancient history - can we move on now?

> the way they changed the location of installed
> programs is another (/opt ignored, everything in /usr and even
> programs like OpenOffice.org in /usr/lib/ !), 
	Portions of that are LSB compliance, other portions a matter of
choice.  Why is /usr/lib and invalid location for an application that spans
multiple functions?

> the fact that they
> don't do newbies a favor and install a default /usr/src/linux/.config
> messing up many configure scripts...
	Umm - see: /usr/src/linux-2.4/configs - every config file for every
kernel is in there.  You can also simply run a "make oldconfig".  Newbies
should RTFM.
	

> That kind of thing. Anything requiring special attention, just because
> RedHat decided to change something and not follow a convention (be it
> directory standards, official releases of compiles, in-house
> kernel/XFree patches that create behavior inconsistent with the
> vanilla sources).
	
	So then what becomes the point of releasing a new distro?  Release
notes are there for a reason - because there _are_ things that are going to
require special attention.  Doc files are there for a reason.  LSB
compliance is the convention RH is following that's causing much of the
change in structure.  If Red Hat ran someone else's kernel it wouldn't be
Red Hat - name me the distro that does not apply a single kernel patch - in
house or otherwise.  If by "behavior inconsistent with the vanilla sources"
you mean "it actually works as expected" - guess which one I'm for?

Don