Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Reuben Pasqui » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Hello!

I'm thinking about updating my system with Redhat 5.1.  Does Redhat 5.1
seem to be fairly stable/bug-free?  Any major problems?  I avoided
Redhat 5.0 because I didn't want to deal with applying all the patches;
is 5.1 better?


Thanks!
Reuben

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by David M. Co » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00


On 3 Jun 1998 16:20:25 GMT, Reuben Pasquini


>I'm thinking about updating my system with Redhat 5.1.  Does Redhat 5.1
>seem to be fairly stable/bug-free?  Any major problems?  I avoided
>Redhat 5.0 because I didn't want to deal with applying all the patches;
>is 5.1 better?

Seems fine so far.  A couple problems:

* where are the tcl/tk header files?
* glint seems to have problems with queries

I think I'll get this stuff from Oliver Andrich's page anyway:

http://starship.skyport.net/crew/andrich/

Dave Cook

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Josh Fishm » Sat, 06 Jun 1998 04:00:00


On 3 Jun 1998 16:20:25 GMT, Reuben Pasquini

Quote:>I'm thinking about updating my system with Redhat 5.1.  Does Redhat 5.1
>seem to be fairly stable/bug-free?  Any major problems?  I avoided
>Redhat 5.0 because I didn't want to deal with applying all the patches;
>is 5.1 better?

NO!!

The compiler is broken as shipped.
Among other things, KDE won't compile -- 'Nuff said.

The rest of the system is lovely. I really think I'm going to like
the ``linuxconf'' thingy. ``xntpd'' is installed by default and it
sets the system clock on boot up. I've heard the ``redneck'' lang-
uage option is amusing.

But the compiler is broken.
When it's fixed, I look forward to using 5.1 again.

 - Josh

--
   O<      ( (      [     Linux: the choice of a GNU generation.      ]
 _NH >=O    ) )     [                                                 ]
<_>-<_   + :::::-.  [ ``Is that spam? One measly little 2K message?'' ]

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by FoulDrag » Sun, 07 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>NO!!

>The compiler is broken as shipped.
>Among other things, KDE won't compile -- 'Nuff said.

>The rest of the system is lovely. I really think I'm going to like
>the ``linuxconf'' thingy. ``xntpd'' is installed by default and it
>sets the system clock on boot up. I've heard the ``redneck'' lang-
>uage option is amusing.

>But the compiler is broken.
>When it's fixed, I look forward to using 5.1 again.

What in Ma'graialen's name is wrong with Red Hat?  They have to know they're
shipping not just a minority product that must win users over, but also one
with several competitiors [Slackware, Debian, Caldera....]  Do they think
they're so big they can just force broken software on an innocent market?  Of
course, they already fed us those damned rpm files....
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii  [~73% dragon pure!] (Clan Nightwings)
members.xoom.com/marada
'The fundamental difference between Linux and DOS is that DOS development
usually starts at version 1.0, while Linux software generally goes up to 1.0.'
 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Christopher B. Brow » Sun, 07 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>>NO!!

>>The compiler is broken as shipped.
>>Among other things, KDE won't compile -- 'Nuff said.

>>The rest of the system is lovely. I really think I'm going to like
>>the ``linuxconf'' thingy. ``xntpd'' is installed by default and it
>>sets the system clock on boot up. I've heard the ``redneck'' lang-
>>uage option is amusing.

>>But the compiler is broken.
>>When it's fixed, I look forward to using 5.1 again.

>What in Ma'graialen's name is wrong with Red Hat?  They have to know they're
>shipping not just a minority product that must win users over, but also one
>with several competitiors [Slackware, Debian, Caldera....]  Do they think
>they're so big they can just force broken software on an innocent market?  Of
>course, they already fed us those damned rpm files....

This begs the question:

"Is it EGCS that's wrong, or is it KDE?"

There wre problems in compiling the Linux kernel with EGCS; that resulted
from *BUGS* in the kernel where the kernel code was specifically written to
work around bugs that used to be in GCC.

Once the GCC bugs were fixed, those workarounds themselves were bugs.  Note
that they always *were* bugs in the kernel.

That was the case with the kernel, written in C, where GCC's "quality" was
best.  

G++ 2.7.x has been noted for having far more problems.  

And EGCS is a *substantial* change over G++ 2.7.x, by all reports to the
better.

It seems rather likely to me that the KDE problems most likely result from
the same sort of thing.  

Is it Red Hat's fault when independent developers write buggy code in
response to problems with buggy compilers?  Hmmm?

--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.  
-- Henry Spencer          <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Tor Slettne » Sun, 07 Jun 1998 04:00:00


    FoulDragon> What in Ma'graialen's name is wrong with Red Hat?
    FoulDragon> They have to know they're shipping not just a minority
    FoulDragon> product that must win users over, but also one with
    FoulDragon> several competitiors [Slackware, Debian, Caldera....]

The following could be construed as a flame by some.  Those who
confuse their own identity with that of RedHat Software might want to
stop here.

RedHat (and Caldera) are in a way a "thing of the past":  A commercial
entity with the notion that paying developers produces better work.

RedHat 5.0 also had 'gcc' problems - it would generate Signal 11 on
the first few Cyrix 6x86 processors.  (That's obviously also a Cyrix
problem, but nevertheless).  Its Xfree86-S3 server had problems.  Its
version of 'libc' was so old that Netscape and StarOffice needed
updates to run.  So RedHat 5.1 has 'gcc' problems too?  Big suprise.

With all respects due and all that - such obvious problems would be
fairly impossible with a final Debian release, for instance.  By the
time it reaches release (through a month-long "frozen" state), several
thousand people have been running it - and had access to a very
straightforward bug tracking system (by invoking "bug").  Indeed, most
of the traffic regarding KDE's "kuser" screwup on NIS/YP systems (a
very serious one for those affected - it screws up the /etc/passwd and
/etc/shadow files) came through Debian's bugtracking system.

-tor

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Josh Fishm » Sun, 07 Jun 1998 04:00:00


 [ long, long ago, I said: ]

Quote:>>>The compiler is broken as shipped.
>>>Among other things, KDE won't compile -- 'Nuff said.

Then, on 6 Jun 1998 14:21:49 GMT, Christopher B. Browne

Quote:>This begs the question:

>"Is it EGCS that's wrong, or is it KDE?"

 [ snip ]

>Is it Red Hat's fault when independent developers write buggy code in
>response to problems with buggy compilers?  Hmmm?

Maybe, but KDE's just one thing I picked for an example, thinking (a) most
people have heard of it, and (b) it won't compile on RH-5.1.

The show stopper is that the Large Software Project we're working on won't
compile. Lots of Khoros, lots of C++, compiles on RH-5.0 and both flavours
of Solaris, but won't on RH-5.1.

I'm going to continue to blame the compiler until it compiles nearly every-
thing else right or we find some huge, rancid, festering bugs in our code,
which somehow worked fine in RH-5.0 and Solaris.

 - Josh ``or both'' Fishman

--
   O<      ( (      [     Linux: the choice of a GNU generation.      ]
 _NH >=O    ) )     [                                                 ]
<_>-<_   + :::::-.  [ ``Is that spam? One measly little 2K message?'' ]

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by david parso » Sun, 07 Jun 1998 04:00:00




>    FoulDragon> What in Ma'graialen's name is wrong with Red Hat?
>    FoulDragon> They have to know they're shipping not just a minority
>    FoulDragon> product that must win users over, but also one with
>    FoulDragon> several competitiors [Slackware, Debian, Caldera....]

>The following could be construed as a flame by some.  Those who
>confuse their own identity with that of RedHat Software might want to
>stop here.

>RedHat (and Caldera) are in a way a "thing of the past":  A commercial
>entity with the notion that paying developers produces better work.

   It depends on the work you're trying to do.

   If you're trying to do work you LIKE, it's pretty easy to do it for
   free.

   If you're trying to do work you DON'T like, and you don't have
   some sort of motivation to do that work, it's not extraordinarily
   easy to do it for free.

   And, even in the case of trying to do work you like, there's the
   small problem of staying fed while you're doing it.  Perhaps when the
   communist paradise is achieved people will be able to spend all their
   time doing only work they like while the effortless machinery of the
   state quietly deals with the drudgework, but right now people do need
   to eat.

   Both Red[Hh]at and Caldera do well at the business of putting
   administrative tools into a coherent mass; a lot of that work is
   pretty thankless and takes a long time to do (McAfee Associates
   contracted with me for 18 months to develop their _WebShield_
   product;  of that, about 12 months was designing and writing user
   interfaces -- and even then I had to hire more contractors to do the
   web interface, because I didn't have TIME to do it.)  Now I'm doing
   it in my spare time because it's fun for me to do, but the groundwork
   would be nowhere near as far as it is if I had not first written the
   fraternal twin of this interface on McAfee Associate's dime.

   You don't pay programmers to produce random good code; the good
   programmers will do this on their own.  You instead pay programmers
   to produce the good code that you want.

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ Not that I'd rant about this or anything.
                  \/

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Brandon J. Andrew » Mon, 08 Jun 1998 04:00:00



> NO!!

> The compiler is broken as shipped.
> Among other things, KDE won't compile -- 'Nuff said.

> The rest of the system is lovely. I really think I'm going to like
> the ``linuxconf'' thingy. ``xntpd'' is installed by default and it
> sets the system clock on boot up. I've heard the ``redneck'' lang-
> uage option is amusing.

> But the compiler is broken.
> When it's fixed, I look forward to using 5.1 again.

>  - Josh

> --
>    O<      ( (      [     Linux: the choice of a GNU generation.      ]
>  _NH >=O    ) )     [                                                 ]
> <_>-<_   + :::::-.  [ ``Is that spam? One measly little 2K message?'' ]


Interesting...  I've had no problems with the compiler.  Even the GIMP,
in all its massive grandeur, compiled successfully.  Are you sure you
weren't trying to compile with gcc, which is included for "backwards
compatibility," but does not include C++ support?
--
Brandon J. Andrews

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
                                         -Friedrich Nietzsche

"Did I ever tell you about the illusion of free will?"

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Frank C. Ea » Tue, 09 Jun 1998 04:00:00


On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 11:00:50 GMT, "Brandon J. Andrews"


>Interesting...  I've had no problems with the compiler.  Even the GIMP,
>in all its massive grandeur, compiled successfully.  Are you sure you
>weren't trying to compile with gcc, which is included for "backwards
>compatibility," but does not include C++ support?

No, what I'll bet happened was that everyone with problems "upgraded"
to 5.1.  Seems that things don't work swimmingly when you upgrade with
either of the 5.x releases.  I had worlds of problems when I did an
upgrade install to 5.0, but not a single problem operating with a
fresh install.  Red Hat probably needs to slow down here and idle for
a while, doing incremental changes instead of sweeping ones- 5.0 and
5.1 have some pretty *DRAMATIC* changes to the build structure, namely
glib for one and ecgs for another.  If the upgrade process isn't just
right under these sorts of conditions, all hell busts loose on the
upgrade- nothing seems to quite work right.  

--
Frank C. Earl
Earl Consulting Services
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to USC 47, there is a $500 per incident charge for each and
every piece of Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) sent to this or any
of my other addresses.  Sending UCE's to any of my addresses implys
general acceptance of these terms.  (My Return addresses are _deliberately_
broken to interfere with mailing list generators- remove "-no-spam-" every
place in the address to reply.)

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Sam Trenhol » Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Quote:>There maybe *is* something broken in the Red Hat setup, but I can't really
>say since I don't have access to a RH5.1 system.

Somebody on irc.slashdot.org was talking about this bug, and found that
it was a conflict between a library or header file that normal GCC uses,
or was it a missing file in the EGCS distro on RH5.1.  I wish I could
remember....

- Sam

--
Unique Linux information: http://linux-rules.samiam.org/linux/linux_links.html
   I have the right to make public flames/spam I receive in response to this

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Sam Trenhol » Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:00:00


RedHat vs. Debian
Vi vs. Emacs

Quote:>RedHat (and Caldera) are in a way a "thing of the past":  A commercial
>entity with the notion that paying developers produces better work.

[RedHat vs. Debian with a Debian bias]

First of all, I would like to say that Debian is an excellent project,
with noble goals and an excellent distribution.

My objections to Debian are as follows:

* Lack of security updates for 'bo' (Debian 1.3.1), the last stable release
  of Debian.  If you have a Debian system, security updates is a patchwork
  of "roll your own", or updating to an unproven system.  With RedHat,
  security updates is as simple as making this your home page in
  Netscape:

        http://www.redhat.com/support/docs/rhl/rh42-errata-general.html

  And installing updates as needed.

* More difficult install procedure than the install procedure for RedHat

* The release date for 'hamm' (Debian 2.0) keeps getting pushed back.
  It was scheduled to be released in April, but still isn't around.

Debian is an excellent system, and is a good choice for people willing to
take the extra time needed to install Debian, and are willing to keep up
to date on the latest security information.  It is also a very flexible
system, with multiple architechure support in the up and coming Debian
2.0 release.

As for RedHat, they go to a lot of effort to fix distribution bugs as
quickly as possible.  They also still update their RedHat 4.2 system,
even though the system is over a year old.

- Sam
--
Unique Linux information: http://linux-rules.samiam.org/linux/linux_links.html
   I have the right to make public flames/spam I receive in response to this

 
 
 

Redhat 5.1 is ok?

Post by Tor Slettne » Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:00:00


    Sam> My objections to Debian are as follows:
    Sam> * Lack of security updates for 'bo' (Debian 1.3.1), the last
    Sam>   stable release of Debian.

Include 'bo-unstable' in your distribution list (don't be scared by
the name; 'unstable' really means 'current').  This is where 1.3 (bo)
updates go.

In the long run, you will want to upgrade to Hamm, because more and
more pre-compiled/commercial programs will be using 'glibc'.

    Sam> * More difficult install procedure than the install procedure
    Sam> for RedHat

True.  Or maybe rather "cumbersome".  There are more than 1800
packages in Debian 2.0, more than any other Linux distribution; and
while they are organized in sections, they are nevertheless all listed
on one menu.

    Sam> * The release date for 'hamm' (Debian 2.0) keeps getting
    Sam> pushed back.  It was scheduled to be released in April, but
    Sam> still isn't around.

Also true.  Some bugs that are deemed release-critical are the
culprit.  Another effect of Debian's strong bug-tracking system -
these are dealt with _before_ release, not after as in the case of
certain other distributions.

If you are aware of how to get it, this would not be much of a problem
though.  Keeping a Debian system up-to-date, unlike other
distributions, is a semi-automatic process - there is no effort in
obtaining any updates once 2.0 is released.  

-tor

 
 
 

1. Redhat 5.1 in 4 Meg of RAM on a 386...am I insane?

Well, I'm trying it. It's a 386 SX 16, I have two hard drives, one a 204
and the other a 107 hanging off of the drive controller (replacing the
massive ST225 and ST251 that it had when I got it (20.5 meg and 51.5 meg
drives respectively)).I cant' seem to get it to boot past mounting root.
I"m guessing that it's running out of memory, although it doesn't say
that it does. It just sits there doing bdflush() s for a few minutes and
then stops altogether (no command line options at boot:). Does anyone
have any ideas as to how I can get it past that? I tried specifing
mem=3m to see what happens, and I get a "unable to load NLS charset
cp437(nls_cp437)" and, after it mounts the root,  "Can't start initial
console".(boot: linux mem=3m root=/dev/hda1)..other combinations usually
result in Kernel panic: VFS: unable to mount root or an outright out of
memory message (mem=4m and any other paramiters..anyone have any ideas?
Thanks in advance....

Dave
P.S. in case you haven't noticed, I'm kinda new to Linux...so thanks for
bearing with me :)

2. sendmail -> host unknown

3. OK, I am sick and tired of RedHat

4. Wanted: comments on Opus co-processor boards for PC

5. upgrade from Redhat Linux 5.0 to redhat linux 5.1

6. Stylus Color 760

7. RedHat 5.0 to RedHat 5.1

8. TAR with Unix

9. If REDHAT is listening, suggestions for Redhat 5.1

10. Redhat 5.0 --> Redhat 5.1

11. upgrade from Redhat 5.0 to Redhat 5.1

12. Redhat 5.0 v's Redhat 5.1

13. AIX 5.1.B and 5.1.C and AIX 5.1.D