-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 18:01, you wrote:
> Wrong in both terms:
>
> 1. GCC 2.96 to me seems very stable these days - and I have more then
> enough compile expirience with it (I use 2.96 only up until few days ago).
> It had few problems when it came out when RH 7.0, 7.1 and with the first
> version on 7.2, but if you use gcc-2.96-112 then it should be stable.
Do you notice anything wrong with the previous statement ?!?
gcc-2.96-112. First - prey tell how can you tell the version aparts ? (the
first I don't know how many versions didn't have ANY identification).
Second - the fact that they got it stable after a year and a half is hardly
evidence that the original descision was right. Third - do you notice the
number ? 112 ?!? I wouldn't trust ANY product that got 112 revisions in a
year and half with my data....:). I have worked with RH 2.96 too and guess
what ?!? When my co -worker upgraded it by mistake it stopped compiling
perfectly legal C++. A fix came out 2 days later. This is a sure sign of
incompetency and of the fact that very central parts of the system were
unstable and were probably released just by the sheer force of user pressure
which introduced more bugs etc etc etc... Redhat played a nice imitation of
MS here.
>
> 2. Red Hat is definately not compatible with Mandrake any more. Specially
> with Red Hat 8.0 which will be totally incompatible with anything on the
> market - be it kernel modules, or just binary applications. RH 8.0 is using
> glibc 2.3, a kernel which is heavily modified to compile under GCC 3.2
> (which is the only compiler that Red Hat 8.0 is installing, although
> gcc2.96 is still on the CD) - be my guest, try to install any .i386.rpm
> from Red Hat 8.0 to Mandrake, it's not even compatible with RPM version
> (4.1.0 now and counting) (any company who thinks to start supporting RedHat
> 8.0 - make sure you have enough Aspirin in your closet)
I didn't say that Redhat tried to be compatible with Mandrake. I said that
Mandrake try to be compatible with Redhat (that's why they ate the 2.96 pill
and put on a happy face even though the developers there sure made their
opinion about it known in various mailing lists). If RedHat is moving to 3.2
then so will mandrake. BTW: if Mandrake do decide to do it (and they have
probably decided about this issue a long time ago since they are working on
9.0 for quite some time now) then they are not obliged to use the same kernel
as RH since the interface to the kernel is not via the regular language ABI
but rather through sysclass which remain the same no matter which compiler
version you are using.
There are very strong incentives for Mandrake to be compatible with RedHat
(and copatibility does not mean that they have the same versions of
everything installed). By compatibility I mean ABI compatibility. For
instance: If Oracle release their database for RH could it be installed on
MDK ? Sure it could if Mandrake used the same ABI compiler as RH. This is the
most important requirement to be ABI compatible with RedHat and it brings in
a lot of benefits (for instance - every commercial RPM that can be installed
on RH can be installed on MDK). Please do not confuse superficial changes
(like changes in KDE versions, look and feel, versions of various packages)
with very important features like changes in ABI.
>
> > Actually - what comes out of all this is that Mandrake HAS to release a
> > major version whenever RH releases one (or shortly after because of
> > development time) if it wants to keep it's objective of staying RH
> > compatible. So it's not such a big surprise to me...:). Suse uses RPM too
> > but is NOT RH compatible and did not follow suit on the 2.96 issue. They
> > are a sane company I guess.
>
> But it's NOT! Mandrake 9 cannot run ANYTHING from Red Hat 8.0 - unless it's
> an noarch RPM ;)
Did you try it ? Meaning did you install a Mandrake 9 system and tried to
install RPMs from Redhat ? If so then it means that Mandrake abandoned RH
compatibility (which they had in ALL version prior to this one). If so - then
I can only congratulate them - they should have done it the first day they
laid their eyes on a compiler version which was not official and ran to the
gcc site to download it just like I did just to discover it was a half baked
idea...
Regards,
Mark
>
> Thanks,
> Hetz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE9keR5xlxDIcceXTgRAgsoAKDFSdQ48WwZSZDA6624yz3sowi8xQCfb6xI
9n3mzbVW3cNit5MT6tDp23w=
=sQJe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
