> 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).
umm, gcc -v? hetz]$ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112) > 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. I didn't say it's the best compiler. If I was a corporate with some financing, I would surely buy the Intel compiler or the (just released) Borland C/C++ compiler. You'll have MUCH better support than you'll get from the gcc team (been there before) It was mentioned time and time again - Red Hat didn't have any choice with the compiler. Have you ever tried GCC on non X86 machines? feel free to test it on SGI, or Sun, or Alpha boxes and see how GCC 2.95 is SO SLOW (I heard it's about 10% the speed compared to their commercial compilers) so Red Hat didn't have a choice and forked the GCC (and returning patches to 3.0 branch) because thats what their customers wanted and ultimately - thats what pushed the GCC team to release 3.0 branch. I think that the GCC development is only second in rating of slowness development (the first, without a doubt - is Mozilla) > > 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. Well, you forgot 1 thing. Mandrake 9 is with GLIBC 2.2.x while Red Hat 8.0 is with GLIBC 2.2.9 (which is 2.3 but they cannot declare since there isn't any official release yet) - so adios binary compatibility between Red Hat and Mandrake. > > 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... Feel free to test it. Won't work. Any bets? ;) Hetz ================================================================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]
