Re: Why Slackware Sucks (fwd)

[Kris Danner <kdanner@eosinc.com>]

And on that note, 3 more RedHat 5.0 fixes were posted today. I think they
should maybe call the next version 5.2 rather than 5.1 since we have
pretty much had to replace every package in 5.0 already(glibc has been
what 6 times now?). Now before someone thinks I am going to start
advocating debian, forget it, ain't gonna happen. However you just might
want to take a look at the SuSE distro.

Thank you drive through,

Kristofer D. Danner

On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Steven Pritchard wrote:

> 
> The other one I mentioned...
> 
> ----- Forwarded message -----
> 
> From: Steven Pritchard <steve@silug.org>
> Message-Id: <199710132310.SAA04947@osiris.silug.org>
> Subject: Re: Why Slackware Sucks
> In-Reply-To: <199710132225.RAA04810@osiris.silug.org> from Steven Pritchard at "Oct 13, 97 05:25:16 pm"
> To: silug-discuss@silug.org
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:10:49 -0500 (CDT)
> Reply-To: silug-discuss@silug.org
> Organization: Southern Illinois Linux Users Group
> 
> 
> Because someone asked, and in the interest of fairness, I now
> present...
> 
>                     "Why Red Hat Sucks Too"
> 
> For the most part, I like Red Hat, but a lot of little things bug me,
> especially with the install.  Most of those things are stuff the
> average user won't see, especially if you install from either an ATAPI
> CD-ROM or via NFS (and you have a fairly standard network card).
> 
> The biggest thing that pisses me off is they don't seem to test their
> install on anything other than pretty vanilla hardware.  I couldn't
> even get RH 4.2 (the latest version) to install on a machine with an
> Adaptec 1522 SCSI card, which is probably one of the most common SCSI
> cards on the planet.  After you do finally get installed, silly stuff
> like backspace in X doesn't work right.  For things like that, the
> fixes are usually simple, but why should the user have to fix those
> things?
> 
> Other bitches include the fact that they won't move to a new version
> of something like Apache when it comes out for some damn reason
> (they're still on 1.1.x), even though it is faster, more stable, more
> secure, etc., but they'll throw in something like PAM that is (or at
> least was) nowhere near prime-time quality.
> 
> On a similar note, they have never bothered to spend much time
> optimizing the way things compile/install, i.e. they've never shipped
> a version of perl that builds a shared libperl.so, even though that
> has been possible since 5.002, would make the installation of many
> other packages that require it possible, would make the memory (and
> possibly disk) requirements of perl lower, etc., etc., etc.  (For that
> matter, they're still on 5.003 instead of 5.004, which has been out
> for months.  There are also several other packages that they don't
> bother to keep up-to-date with.)
> 
> There's more, but I'm sure you've all heard enough for now...  :-)
> 
> Steve
> -- 
> steve@lanscape.net          | System Administrator
> (217)698-1694               | LANscape
> Steven Pritchard            | http://www.lanscape.net/
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
> "unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
> "unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.