On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:50:45PM -0500, Jima wrote: > Great. Now your "more technically enlightened than thou" attitude is > spreading to the mailing list. Sorry I can't live up to your standards. > I don't like people spreading bad information, if you can't give a decent explanation of something, then please, keep it to yourself. Bad information is worse than no information. > > As for the 2.4.9 kernel, yes, you're 9 kernels behind the current redhat > > kernel (2.4.18). stop whining and upgrade =) > > You've yet to present an objective reason to upgrade. I find having a > 7.2 RPM build host more useful, thanks. "The NTFS module is broken" that was the reason for upgrading, I don't care what kernel you use, I've still got systems running 2.0.x kernels. > If that would take less than 15 minutes (slow CD-ROM on the install), > sure. If not, it's just wasting time. But that still assumes that I'd > want 7.3 on that machine. How hard is this for you to understand? Mandrake takes 15 minutes just to get into the installer and past the installation questions. Like I said, I don't care what distribution/version of a distribution you use, but don't bitch and whine when you're running an old one and *gasp* it isn't being kept *UP TO DATE WITH THE NEWEST SOFTWARE*, (including the kernel, with the NTFS fixes) exactly what you've been saying you don't want. If you want your "stable" version of redhat, continue using 7.2, do not complain that the latest 7.2 has a broken ntfs module. if you want a redhat kernel, without a broken ntfs module, upgrade to 7.3. you can of course, always compile your own kernel, but that would require upgrading to newer (potentially unstable!) kernels. > I was referring to your insistance on running the latest release. If I > wanted bleeding-edge, I'd run RawHide, Debian Unstable, or Mandrake > Cooker. I don't. I want stable, reliable servers. So I stick with > stable releases. I prefer to thoroughly test a release before putting it > on a mission-critical machine. Why? Downtime isn't an option. My > co-workers and clients need these servers to run. I don't have the luxury > of time and resources to break and unbreak servers. "stable, reliable servers", you mean the ones you're rebooting to drop an NTFS hard drive into for data recovery? RedHat 7.2 is no more stable than 7.3, you've complained about all sorts of things in 7.3 regarding stability but never given a real example. > When have I bitched about RedHat? When have I whined? When have I > complained? I don't think you want to start flinging mud around. All I > did was voice a (poorly worded) warning meant to save people time, > frustration, and confusion. I'll remember to keep my mouth shut in the > future, lest I anger people. The url was fine, unfortunately the person who wrote it is also biased. > > This has the feel of a fight picked merely for the fun in fighting. Big > surprise. You /were/ the one asking to be flamed, besides, it's better than the stupid troll vo-tech thread =) > > Jima -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203