First off, I can't argue with /. readers, nor could the GCC team who were largely Red Hat employees. One person decided to bark in ignorance. A requirement of RHL7 was an ANSI C++ complier (as well as the IA-64 target). That right there _broke_ a lot of existing C++ code.
But a lot of distros have done that, especially with GCC 2.8 and 2.95. Red Hat never shipped 2.8 or 2.95 because of that, because 2.8 brokle 2.7, and 2.95 broke EGCS 1.1.2 (GCC 2.91.66). They moved from 2.7 to EGCS 1.1.2 (GCC 2.91.66) like most "commercial" OSes. They stuck with EGCS until GCC 3 was implemented as spec'd, and finally "forced" the issue, because at some point, you have to force everyone to accommodate. If you don't, then someone else will, and get that blame. Red Hat .0 releases - every single one of them, were labeled "early adopter." Red Hat recommended you stick with the last .2 release, that's why Red Hat supported .2 releases for 2+ years. Heck, as of RL7.1, they were still suporting 5.2. If you upgraded to RHL 6.0, then that's on you! Red Hat has a 5-9 month revision cycle on purpose, and every 2-4 revisions _purposely_ break things. There is only so much you can port, and external code must accommodate. The vendor who does this puts a lot of effort in for no credit. That has been Red Hat for many things, Novell-SuSE for others. Debian does not have a 6 month revision cycle, it's a different model. You cannot compare the two, so stop doing so. As far as Gentoo, please get of the bigotry, it's tiresome. Distros exist for a reason, or they'd die and no one would use them. And this includes a 7 year supported, enterprise distro. Not only do people pay for it, but every dollar goes to fund a lot of GPL. ;) Your distro pissing besides the point. -- Bryan J Smith - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
