Chris Snyder csnyder at
Sun Jan 14 09:39:17 PST 2001

jerry wrote:

>>> worth.  I did not say in my message that ALL distros are total crap--I
>>> very pointedly asserted that redhat 7.0 was.  Such a buggy distro
>>> actually gives Linux a bad name--it's the windows of the distro world,
> I really do not understand all of the Redhat bashing. If it was not for
> redhat , we would probably still be using libc5 (glibc ver 1.x). At work
> I have servers that have been running redhat for years without a single
> problem. These machines are typically rebooted once a year for upgrades.
> Now when the machine was just upgraded , it was upgraded to redhat 6.2
> with a 2.2.17 kernel. We did not use a 2.4 kernel because it was not
> stable. That does not mean linux 2.4 is a piece of crap , it is just new
> software. Redhat 7.0 is just new software and redhat 7.1 , 7.2 and all
> other distros will be better in the future because redhat put out
> 7.0 so a large number of people will test it in non mission critical
> situations.

The main problem is that they released it as a new version, but with an 
unstable kernel and glibc.  Heck, even the first release of Windows 95 
was more stable.

> Redhat also contributes more back to the linux community than any other
> single entity that I know of through contributions of both code and
> financial support of a great many linux hackers such as allen cox.

The main problem is that they are becoming too commercialized.  They 
should not put getting a 7.0 release over stability.

Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list