On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> No, but you sure like to read comments about something somewhere
>> which are incorrect, and then spread them without researching the
>> truth first. There are tonnes of bullshit rumors and FUD going
>> around about Red Hat Linux 7.0, and I am sick of reading these
>> false statements.
>
>So I typed kcc instead of kgcc (I believe I noted it was from memory)
>and that's FUD?
Thats fine, my point wasn't your typo at all. My point was that
you are wrong, and it is obvious that you didn't know the truth
of the matter, and ended up just spreading untruths. I must
apologize for my tone, however I see a lot of this stuff and you
just ended up being the one who got both barrels. It wasn't
completely aimed just at you. There is a LOT of people spreading
FUD about Red Hat 7, the C compiler and numerous other things.
On person says it, then someone else rants about it without
knowing the truth - on a mailing list, then it's posted on
Slashdot and ingrained in the minds of millions, and is more or
less irrevocable. Then the situation sits that millions of
people believe something that is utterly bullshit, and it pisses
me off...
>Or is it that the default compiler doesn't compile the kernel,
>and it's the kernel broken instead of the compiler? Therefore
>the problem of needing to have a 2nd compiler because the
>default doesn't compile the kernel correctly goes away? If you
>feel that arguing about the details makes people forget there's
>a problem, go to it.
Here's the case: gcc 2.91.66 is ancient by todays terms. It
contains many bugs, and since there are newer compilers out such
as 2.95.x, and later which optimize code much better and contain
many bug fixes, etc.. it makes total sense to ship the compiler
which is MUCH better at compiling code, and that is what
happened. The distribution can't be held back by the kernel.
The fact the kernel contains bugs that require a certain C
compiler doesn't mean all code should be slowed down and everyone
should have to wait for the kernel to play catch up.
The ONLY way that things can happen then, is to ship two
compilers. Since this is an increasing problem, and isn't the
first time 2 compilers have shipped due to kernel bugs, one can
expect it to be the norm from now on. People blast Red Hat for
it, but they don't realize *EVERY* major distributor is shipping
2 compilers in their current distributions, or will be in their
next release unless the kernel gets fixed in the meantime.
Connectiva come up with the idea of using "kgcc" as the name to
avoid conflicts.
Since the kernel header files are now kgcc aware, this shouldn't
be a problem in the future, so long as one compiles the kgcc
compiler. People can complain, or they can learn how to use the
system and move on. If people want things to stay static and not
change, then they can use Red Hat 5.0 or something.
>> >> I can back up my statements with official proof, can you?
>
> You vote Democrat in Florida, right?
Wrong. I'm Canadian, and just voted NDP yesterday. Liberals
won. Jean Cretien for another 4 years...
>1. The version of cdrecord with comes with RH7.0 doesn't record CDs.
Then it is buggy and needs to be fixed, or something is and needs
to be fixed. Without knowing what exactly the problem is, one
can't say much. I am sure that if a proper bug report is filed in
Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.redhat.com) that it WILL be fixed, and
pronto.
>2. Building cdrecord from source results in a version which does record
> CDs.
That is indeed odd. I haven't tried using it in 7.0 yet, so I
can't comment. I'll take your word for it though.
>3. Other people have reported this as well.
Ok, I just looked in bugzilla, and it is there now. I've
elevated the priority because the fix seems simple and I just
tried it myself and it seems to work ok.
>I don't know what you consider official proof. Use what works
>for you and quit trying to keep people from getting the
>information they need to make cdrecord work.
I'm not trying to prevent anyone from anything. I am just upset
about mistruths being spread about the compilers shipping with 7.
The only truth I saw was that the gcc folk disapprove of the
release of the gcc-2.96 snapshot. That is fine, but it doesn't
mean it is buggy as hell.. I understand their problem with the
release as it will likely be them getting bug reports and they
don't want that. From that point, the release was a mistake (due
to the complaints its garnered), but as a compiler, it is very
stable, and IMHO the least buggy compiler ever shipped with Red
Hat Linux.
Again, I apologize for my blast, but one can only read something
so many times before going off. I understand what it can be like
from the other side of the fence too however..
Take care.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Open source advocate
This message is copyright 2000, all rights reserved.
Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emacs is my operating system, and Linux its device driver.
-- Bake Timmons
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
