-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 21:28, Daniel Barclay wrote: > > > > > From: Adam Shand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >if you are running a system > > > with libc5 or glibc 2.0 you are fine and won't have any problems with > > > netscape. > > > > No, no, no. Netscape can be just as horribly unstable on glibc 2.0 > > systems. I know. I suffer from it every day. > > I hate to rain on your parade, but LOTS of people run Netscape 4.5 and > 4.6 with libc 2.0 systems without difficulty. In my last job I had 20+ > users doing so, and many of them were HEAVY users of Netscape. Then there's people who seem to have Netscape working fine under glibc 2.1 (i'm not one of them, but i've heard so somewhere). That doesn't mean there isn't a problem somewhere, just that you haven't encountered it on your boxen. > 6:45pm up 33 days, 2:18, 4 users, load average: 0.01, 0.01, 0.00 What's your machine's uptime have to do with Netscape? > Obviously, YMMV Exactly! - -- finger for PGP public key. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBOBFR277M/9WKZLW5AQG69gP/d2sH/eHzhdgYjwuGzazg9KH36dZ3rjS+ 3sIRBA6cZiuVjjUGghOEr/var/LZl8sBg45mPtDL4B7gAk8LgOGD3rsaoQp81phP Oyca+ndcJemSkyxZeH98AMa7o3EwTrT8z1FRcYJttDXIYh5ZktO2g6N/0JzsYaBl U98sNUddae4= =/8SK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
