> What, does Microsoft support even one OS back? NT 4.0 has something like
> 7 service packs, but Windows 2000 only has 2, and already they are
> trying to toss it away and make everyone upgrade to Windows XP, and
> unlike Mandrake, they are not open source, so you more or less must do
> what they say.
>
2 cents time. You are right and you are wrong. Yes, they're trying to
throw out older versions of their OS, but they are still releasing "hot
fixes" to fix security holes. Mandrake is also doing this. On that point,
the two are even. But I can go buy Office 2000 and run it on Windows 95, or
buy Office 97 and run it on Windows 2000. The big problem I see here is
that user applications in Linux are being tied to the OS version (holy cow,
does that sound like what I think it sounds like?), and for example, I can't
install the latest, greatest version of Evolution (all points about it being
beta software will be ignored - almost all open source/free software is in a
perpetual state of beta-ness because their authors never seem to be
satisfied) on 7.2 because I would have to upgrade almost every lib to get it
to work so why not just do it right and put on 8.0. I see his point.
Apache 1.3.20 is a point release, and so should be upgradeable on the same
version of Linux as he's got. 2.0 should be out of the question, but a
point release just should not be that big deal. (it's probably more
Apache's fault on the dependencies than Mandrake's, but one always shoots
the messenger)
Yes, this goes WAY beyond Mandrake, to every distro out there. I share his
frustration. How can we on one hand decry M$ for tying products to their OS
while on the other hand tying applications to certain versions of a distro
due to dependencies? Doesn't M$ have dependencies?
> David Walluck
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Eaon (already feeling the heat of the flames)
