Re: synchronising with Redhat

[jfm2@club-internet.fr]

> 
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> 
> > I suppose the other issue is the bigger one, though -- do we expect Redhat
> > to finish their release (6.0?) on time, and do we expect it to be different
> > enough that we can't just tell them to plug in the new rpms?
> 
> Aren't they going to jump to glibc 2.1 ? 
> 

I will inquire.  But I fear more probable is them going egcs 1.1 and
that would mean problems with C++

> Is there any reason why we should sync with Redhat ? their major releases
> are hardly known for quality control. Being on the bleeding edge is nice
> , but seems somewhat contrary to our goals. Being a little bit behind the
> bleeding edge is smart. I remember all of those dissatisfied RH5 customers
> on the groups, many of whom became satisfied SuSE customers.
> 

I expect a much better install and some nice features on the user
friendliness area.  In addition they will be including Gnome.

But I don't propose we release the same day they release.  I want to
wait until the smoke clears and in the meantime modify the install,
add features, modernize our stuff

About RedHat problems in 5.0 they will not directly related to glibc
but more to the fact they didn't warn about people having upgraded to
> 5.3.12 plus the fact glibc brought a severe burden on their team
precisely when they were doing a major overhaul on the distrib and
still more because they published it the same day everywhere in the
world.  That meant burning the CDs one or two weeks earlier.

About Suse I cannot tell I admire the Suse people.  In fact being libc
based was used as a marketing tool well after libc was no longer
maintained.  And I hate the hype about "German enginering" specially
after having had two german computers at work who were not specially
good neither in the high performance area nor in the quality of
components.

> A year or so ago, enough of the standard packages would change
> so significantly in a short space of time to make each new release worth
> having. However, a lot of software has stabilised and for many new users,
> the case for being on the bleeding edge seems much weaker. 
> 

Gnome, kernel 2.2, plus linuxconf going up and being able to do far
more things.

> I'd suggest that if Redhat include some new packages ( such as GNOME ) ,
> we ship them, but build them against our current system, and wait for a
> stable ( ie x.1 ) release of RH 
> 
> My preference would be to release after the first month or so of errata
> become available. Redhats major releases are beta quality at best, and we
> don't want to give our users a hastily packaged distro.
> 
> 

Were.  Don't judge future by past.  But waiting a month or so was my
intention from the start.