Mark Veltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you notice anything wrong with the previous statement ?!?
Mark, with all due respect - are you trolling? OK, I'll feed you, even though the subject has been beaten to death elsewhere. Red Hat made an important and informed decision (NB: this is not the same as saying it was correct), documented the reasons, made a clear statement that they are supporting it, and if you do not like it you are welcome to use a different compiler. > gcc-2.96-112. First - prey tell how can you tell the version aparts > ? What do you mean? $ rpm -q gcc gcc-2.96-112 $ 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) $ rpm -q --changelog gcc <output snipped> > Second - the fact that they got it stable after a year and a half is hardly > evidence that the original descision was right. True, it isn't. However, what is "got it stable" supposed to mean? > 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....:). Why? It depends on what the number is. How many CVS versions are there in between releases? For how many architectures (check the changelog)? For how many languages (see the changelog again)? It may only mean that RH follow the incremental development paradigm, which is a Good Thing (TM). Now, 112 revisions in 1.5 years? Not really (see below). Releases? Hardly. It's easy to check what was shipped with various (i386) versions of RH. * 7.3 was shipped with 110, 1 update to 112. * 7.2 was shipped with 98 (more than a year ago), 1 update to 108 * 7.1 was shipped with 81 (more than 1.5 years ago), 1 update to 85 - I see 6 releases with 31 *internal* revisions diring the last 1.5 years. Not so bleak a picture as you seem to be trying to paint. It's not even too much of "release early, release often". > 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++. Well, I have compiled all sorts of C and C++ stuff on a daily basis with all the versions released and haven't encountered any problems (and that includes today), which does not prove there were no problems, of course. Note, however, that RH rolled out their own version because they thought there were too many problems with the "official" compiler, and documented the reasons. They did what OSS is all about. > Redhat played a nice imitation of MS here. AFAIR(ecall) it is quite easy to find "This is a bug. Last time we looked at it was April 9, 1997" in VC++. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================= "... Of theoretical physics and programming, programming embodied the greater intellectual challenge." [E.W.Dijkstra, 1930 - 2002.] ================================================================= 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]
