Re: [Sheflug] GCC 2.96..bugfix/errata :-)

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <nospam [at] sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will [at] misconception.org.uk> writes:

    Will> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Chris J/#6 wrote:

    >> I think its a case of it might work, but don't complain if it
    >> doesn't :) Linus doesn't seem to hold 2.96 (or rather Redhat at
    >> the moment) in high regard.

    Will> Linus says some really dumb stuff sometimes.

Not as often as Red Hat _does_ really dumb stuff.  That's Win-Win for
Linus: lower bug count, and his bugs are doc bugs, not in the executable.

Actually, it's not dumb.  Red Hat has made it plain that minimum
bugginess is not their goal.  Maximum power subject to low bugginess
on the platforms of choice for their corporate clients is.  If you can
afford to buy what VA Linux sells, Red Hat is probably gonna be a damn
fine system, even in x.0 releases.

If you run older hardware with cheap clone adaptors, watch out.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.