[lug] Debian is better?

[Ed Hill]

On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 00:37, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:47:44PM -0700, Jack Swope wrote:
> >RH7.2 through 8.0 and I would have to agree with the dislike for RH8.0. 
> >It is a typical .0 release from RedHat and not really ready for prime 
> >time.
> 
> I don't agree with that...  For example, the system running this mailing
> list, the BLUG and other local LUG web-sites, etc is running 8.0 quite
> happily.  In fact we have quite a number of machines running 8.0 that
> are used heavily and have been quite happy with them.


Taking this a step further, one of the biggest complaints people had
with RH 7.0 was the compiler, which was a RH-only (temporary) fork of
what the GCC folks were working on at the time.  A number of people had
problems with it at first but as it matured it became a pretty decent
compiler.  And since a lot of GCC folks are on RH payroll, theres an
argument to be made that the so-called "2.96" fork helped push things
forward through broader use/testing.

Now fast-forward to RH 8.0 which uses a version of GCC 3.2 and its a
great compiler as far as I can tell.  All of the codes that I'm playing
with (MTL, MagicFM, Xerces-C++, libxml++, ...) compile cleanly and some
appear to have received a nice little performance boost from the better
compiler optimizations.  Relative to the "2.96" fork, there are
virtually no complaints on the 'Net about the new GCC 3.2 as released in
RH 8.0.

IMNSHO, RH 8.0 is easily THE most polished ".0" release in RH history.

Ed

ps - <SARCASM>
     I get all my most difficult tech problems fixed by 
     the trained monkeys at Circuit City and Best Buy.
     </SARCASM>


-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD 
Post-Doctoral Researcher   |  Email:  ed at eh3.com,  ehill at mines.edu
Division of ESE            |  URLs:   http://www.eh3.com
Colorado School of Mines   |    http://cesep.mines.edu/people/hill.htm
Golden, CO  80401          |  Phones:  303-384-2094, 303-273-3483
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20021218/118f8a80/attachment.pgp>