|
From: Dan K. <da...@ke...> - 2003-11-14 17:21:58
|
Dirk Mueller wrote: > So you say that > > a) the version of NPTL in Redhat 9 is still current with the development tree > b) the version of NPTL in Redhat 9 is fully binary and behaviour compatible > with the stuff that went into kernel 2.6 > c) the version of NPTL in Redhat 9 is without bugs > > ? > > Lets just say that this was an extremely biased answer. > > About the "no idea why": I don't think this belongs on a public mailing list, > but since you started dragging it into it, I've to give it an answer: I find > it unacceptable to do such a massive ABI change in a "vendor" kernel that is > labeled as "linux 2.4". Its not anything near linux 2.4 what you ship. > Instead you expect that every 3rd party developer will be happy and full of > joy that you again managed to release a distro that is in core parts > completely incompatible to any (!) other distro out there. That alone > wouldn't be too bad (you could claim that you're technically ahead of other > distributions), but the fact is that its not even compatible to what went > into vanilla kernel makes it a bad decision. ? The compatibility doesn't seem to bad to me. *Someone* had to take the hit and be the first to switch to NPTL etc., and I'm really glad Red Hat did it. Yes, there was some disruption, but it was minimal and responsibly handled, and worth it. > But after redhat-gcc and > redhat-glibc it was just a matter of time until there would be a > redhat-kernel. Aha, you're still pissed about gcc-2.96-rh, aren't you? My personal advice is: let it go. Red Hat had to ship that; they supported it well; and they moved to a standard gcc when that was ready. I fully support what Red Hat did (except perhaps for naming). Apologies for replying to an off-topic thread... - Dan |