It is my observation that Mandrake is more weighted towards performance
and features, relative to quality control, stability, and testing on
disparate systems than some other distibutions.
I believe that both Caldera and Redhat beat it on this score; Caldera
is particularly stable if it works at all, but less flexible and
definately further behind. The do have good tech support in my
experience, but others here have experienced the opposite. Redhat's
was terrible when I last used it; otherwise, I'd use the "home-town
boys" for my Linux still. (They are within 20 miles of our house.)
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, you wrote:
| I just want to reemphasize that I wasn't intending to flame anyone. But my
| point remains. When linux was a totally ad-hoc thing, there was an excuse
| for this kind of thing. Now, with companies like mandrake building and
| shipping distros, I sometimes wonder if there is even a pretense at quality
| control. I don't think mandrake is any worse than redhat, caldera or
| whoever, and I don't expect bottomless, free maintenance, but I do expect
| something close to stable. I haven't tried 7.02, but from what I heard,
| the initial 7.0 was absolutely terrible, in terms of quality. I know there
| are limited man-hours to do a new release, but if I had a choice, I'd opt
| for some larger chunk to be spent on QA as opposed to neat new features. I
| haven't played with other distros before, so I have no idea how they stack
| up against mandrake on this issue.
--
"Brian, the man from babbleon-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org
Support http://www.eff.org. Boycott amazon.com.
Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Support decss defendents.
