It would be better for the entire community if Red Hat dumped a metric assload of resources into hundreds of projects including gnome, mozilla, gcc, rpm, popt, and the kernel. Oh wait they do.
It would also be good for the community if redhat gave me all their revenue, no wait it wouldn't.
Redhat works on new versions of these projects while keeping rock solid, well tested, security and compatibility patched, versions for it's enterprise product. I wouldn't want a kernel written yesterday on my data center and neither would redhat's customers. RedHat is actively working on development of the new kernel as well, they just aren't ready to ship it.
GCC may not have been really GCC but it its g++ was much more of a c++ compiler than 2.95. All they did was branch from the development tree. Things that didn't compile with it didn't compile because of broken code not because of a broken compiler. Furthermore as far as compiled c++ binaries goes, due to the magic of versioned libraries, c++ binaries compiled with all recent "real" gcc releases worked fine.
I don't see how it's anyone else's buisness what compiler redhat uses. I know some project maintainers complained that they didn't want to support this compiler version but they had the option of not supporting it and letting redhat or a redhat user contribute a patch or they could just plain let it be, and continue to ship broken code.
Furthermore, redhat shipped a secend compiler with that release compat-egcs-6.2 (egcs-1.1.2) just in case code was tied to specific existing gcc behaviors).
So next time lets save the complaints for when redhat commits an attrocity like changing the default theme.
"An operating system is supposed to be a stable standard platform for development and use."
But Linux is not an Operating System, it's a kernel, it can be used to make an operating system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an operating system Debian GNU/Linux is an operating system. Why do you think that commercial software vendors specify specific disros and versions. If you want an operating system that is unique and that no one can modify, I suggest you use a closed source OS.
'Find the Download in a Haystack' eh?
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The pot calling the kettle black.
I couldn't find the Linux download in the hastack for Windows Media or Quciktime. Real: 1, MS, Apple: 0.
Real has been a good company lately. They make a native, open-source (but not free-software) player using native GTK+ widgets for my operating system. Neither MS nor Apple care about streaming to Linux.
I don't see how it's better than the situation with c. C lets you choose on an object by object basis if you want it garbage collected or if you want to manually manage it.
> If those people make a few "bugfixes" (such as fixing the bug in Mozilla which blocks popups) do you want them to be able to still call it "Mozilla"?
But the difference here is Linus has an open policy, I could start a "Compenguin Linux" distro today with no problems however a firefox build in there [with some sort of patch i'm sure] i'd need to get it pre-approved by the foundation. As a contributer that really irks me.
Then get your builds from a reputable source. If you get your build from Debian or RedHat or Chris Blizzard it probably will be good, don't trust a build off Kazaa. They have more to loose with ruining their repution off of people running shitty nightlies than Debian builds.
It's close enough to firefox, every major linux distribuion includes patches against most of its packages and no one has had a problem with it before. Debian includes patches for the Linux kernel so it's not Linux and to the Gnu tool chain so it's not GNU. I gues it is really "Debian DNU/Debix featuring redskin webserver, baraim instant messenger, the firebaz web browser, and the dcc comipler."
Plenty of people make products called Linux, "Debian GNU/Linux," "Redhat Enterprise Linux," "Gentoo Linux," "Turbo Linux," etc. This causes no problems why cant the mozilla foundation be ok with this sort of scheme, I would have no problems using "Gentoo Firefox" (Except that I loathe Firebird and much prefer galeon or the suite but that's a seperate discussion."
But mozilla.org is not a for profit company, if the brand loses some value so what, i don't see apache making distros remove branding, in fact it has gained more publicity that way. Very few Linux users get mozilla from mozilla.org, most used distribution versions, making the distros use other names will only hurt their name recognition in the end.
It used to be that the mozilla artwork could be used pretty freely when netscape was still a product, but alas, not anymore. I think mozilla.org, should release soem BSD or trilicense artwork for unofficial stuff.
I tried evolution 1.5 and I really dislike the new UI the two things that drive me nuts are the buttons in the bottom left (can they be hid?) and that it no longer displays the number of messages in each folder... oh and I also dislike how it automaigically trys to import stuff from evo 1.4.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be better for the entire community if Red Hat dumped a metric assload of resources into hundreds of projects including gnome, mozilla, gcc, rpm, popt, and the kernel. Oh wait they do.
It would also be good for the community if redhat gave me all their revenue, no wait it wouldn't.
Redhat works on new versions of these projects while keeping rock solid, well tested, security and compatibility patched, versions for it's enterprise product. I wouldn't want a kernel written yesterday on my data center and neither would redhat's customers. RedHat is actively working on development of the new kernel as well, they just aren't ready to ship it.
GCC may not have been really GCC but it its g++ was much more of a c++ compiler than 2.95. All they did was branch from the development tree. Things that didn't compile with it didn't compile because of broken code not because of a broken compiler. Furthermore as far as compiled c++ binaries goes, due to the magic of versioned libraries, c++ binaries compiled with all recent "real" gcc releases worked fine.
I don't see how it's anyone else's buisness what compiler redhat uses. I know some project maintainers complained that they didn't want to support this compiler version but they had the option of not supporting it and letting redhat or a redhat user contribute a patch or they could just plain let it be, and continue to ship broken code.
Furthermore, redhat shipped a secend compiler with that release compat-egcs-6.2 (egcs-1.1.2) just in case code was tied to specific existing gcc behaviors).
So next time lets save the complaints for when redhat commits an attrocity like changing the default theme.
"An operating system is supposed to be a stable standard platform for development and use."
But Linux is not an Operating System, it's a kernel, it can be used to make an operating system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an operating system Debian GNU/Linux is an operating system. Why do you think that commercial software vendors specify specific disros and versions. If you want an operating system that is unique and that no one can modify, I suggest you use a closed source OS.
The pot calling the kettle black.
I couldn't find the Linux download in the hastack for Windows Media or Quciktime. Real: 1, MS, Apple: 0.
Do you remember how long it took to get reliably working sorenson support?
Real has been a good company lately. They make a native, open-source (but not free-software) player using native GTK+ widgets for my operating system. Neither MS nor Apple care about streaming to Linux.
But why can't it? Maybe Mr Gibson should have used a less ambiguous term.
So then he wasn't passionate about his teachings or phillosophy?
The difference is the java classpath. That's what everyone wants. C++ and C don't have nearly as large a standard library set.
Your brown little KParts aren't going to school with my Bonobo and thats the bottom line!
I found galeon's tabbed browsing to be much smoother than firefox. To start with it doesn't need an extension to be custoamizable or reorderable.
Most manufacturers other than apple (Rio, iRiver, Nueros) have been adding vorbis support to their hd players. Apple is just higher profile.
I don't see how it's better than the situation with c. C lets you choose on an object by object basis if you want it garbage collected or if you want to manually manage it.
> If those people make a few "bugfixes" (such as fixing the bug in Mozilla which blocks popups) do you want them to be able to still call it "Mozilla"?
Yes they should still be able to call it mozilla.
But the difference here is Linus has an open policy, I could start a "Compenguin Linux" distro today with no problems however a firefox build in there [with some sort of patch i'm sure] i'd need to get it pre-approved by the foundation. As a contributer that really irks me.
Then get your builds from a reputable source. If you get your build from Debian or RedHat or Chris Blizzard it probably will be good, don't trust a build off Kazaa. They have more to loose with ruining their repution off of people running shitty nightlies than Debian builds.
Different people like different browsers, dropping choice chases people away.
It's close enough to firefox, every major linux distribuion includes patches against most of its packages and no one has had a problem with it before. Debian includes patches for the Linux kernel so it's not Linux and to the Gnu tool chain so it's not GNU. I gues it is really "Debian DNU/Debix featuring redskin webserver, baraim instant messenger, the firebaz web browser, and the dcc comipler."
Plenty of people make products called Linux, "Debian GNU/Linux," "Redhat Enterprise Linux," "Gentoo Linux," "Turbo Linux," etc. This causes no problems why cant the mozilla foundation be ok with this sort of scheme, I would have no problems using "Gentoo Firefox" (Except that I loathe Firebird and much prefer galeon or the suite but that's a seperate discussion."
The Tux logo is also licensed fairly freely.
But mozilla.org is not a for profit company, if the brand loses some value so what, i don't see apache making distros remove branding, in fact it has gained more publicity that way. Very few Linux users get mozilla from mozilla.org, most used distribution versions, making the distros use other names will only hurt their name recognition in the end.
It used to be that the mozilla artwork could be used pretty freely when netscape was still a product, but alas, not anymore. I think mozilla.org, should release soem BSD or trilicense artwork for unofficial stuff.
I tried evolution 1.5 and I really dislike the new UI the two things that drive me nuts are the buttons in the bottom left (can they be hid?) and that it no longer displays the number of messages in each folder... oh and I also dislike how it automaigically trys to import stuff from evo 1.4.
Great, gentoo won't patch XFree 4.3 to build against kernel-headers-2.6 and it wont ship 4.4. Lovely, really.
But for someone like me who compiles everything from source anyway does this have any benefits over the other archs?
I still don't understand what makes AMD64 better than Itanium, Spac64, alpha, and ppc64.