-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Paul Iadonisi hath spake thusly: > > Compare Derek's complaints to what I > > would consider "standard sysadmin practices" as espoused by Evi > > Nemeth, et al, in the UNIX/Linux System Administrator's Handbook > > series. RH violates these basic practices with their configurations > > many times. > > *sigh* I see the horse *is* still twitching. At first glance, and > knowing Red Hat's distribution quite well, I'd have to disagree. > However, I will now go read Derek's supposedly entertaining bug reports > for a more accurate understanding of what you are saying.
Well, I wish you wouldn't. Ben is right in that some of those bug reports are less than complementary. On a few occasions, I've allowed frustration to get the better of me, and said some things I'd probably prefer I didn't... Paul L. is right though, I've been submitting bug reports for every distribution (barring .0 releases, which I wouldn't run on anything critical) since RH 5.1, and there have been some pretty amazing cases... Some of the better ones I've submitted were under a variety of different e-mail addresses, which I'm not going to bother to list. I've also added extensive comments to bug reports submitted by other people, which also wouldn't show up in Paul's query. I do agree with Paul that Red Hat does need better QA. My personal favorite bug was where Red Hat broke /bin/sort by adding i18n support to it. GNU textutils comes with a test suite, which RH's engineers quite obviously never ran... The best part is it took them over 6 months to release a fix... But they have had a number of other bugs that I've encountered that, had anyone tried to set up a particular very common case, could not possibly have gone unnoticed. However in Red Hat's defense, one thing to realize is that the number of software components included with a distribution like Red Hat makes it impossible to QA everything thoroughly. But I do still feel they could use some guidance in chosing what subsystems probably need more rigorous testing, and what common cases exist that sysadmins are likely to break... Beyond QA, I also think they do some really bizzare things with the way they organize and configure certain things (like putting the web server's document root in /home) that would make a lot of experienced Unix system administrators cringe. This is more a matter of taste and style than QA, but I think they could use some work there too. Thankfully, they're trying to adhere to the LSB, which eliminates a lot of those problems, or at the very least documents them. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --------------------------------------------- I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9QApWdjdlQoHP510RAiwKAJ9Z7MvHlVFGNoSz1oo/WHuPgMedOQCdFjgZ PHrcL6fuOEQ93eRZb29bi1A= =ua9J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
