On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:51:22 -0600 (CST), you wrote:
>Nadim,
>
>Good question. Others have asked similar questions. Since Red Hat hasn't
>made an official announcement about this (yet), I doubt a native 64-bit
>version will be available when 8.1 is released.
A x86_64 directory only appeared in Ra
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:56:17 -0800, you wrote:
>Yes, I was aware of that BUT please understand, the change to rapid
>expiration of specific versions means we have to update more often to be
>able to stay abreast of the flood of security updates AND new updates to
Not if you move to the Enterpr
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:44:06 -0800, you wrote:
>Well, I do know that it's incredibly arrogant and misleading to jump from
>v8.0 to v9.0 without any intermediate steps. NOBODY in the software world
>does that without some serious serious feature additions. RH9 will be
>nothing more than some normal
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:33:35 -0800, you wrote:
>Comparing Red Hat to MS is ridiculous. As far as I can tell, Red Hats
>latest decisions, for which they've taken so much heat, are all the
>result of actually listening to their customers.
While I agree some of the decisions Red Hat has made have
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:40:11 -0800, you wrote:
>Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
> > So your average person at home now has a choice of Windows XP at $300
> > or Red Hat Enterprise Workstation at $300 ($60 a year after the first
> > year for access to security fixes). Guess
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:33:03 -0800, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 25 March 2003 16:22, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>> It just won't be provided after 12 months.
>
>Wrong. popular releases will be supported for longer, releases such as 6.2 or
>maybe even 7.3. If you read the fine p
On 27 Mar 2003 21:58:29 -0800, you wrote:
>Would I be able to get around this (wine not working) if I built from source?
No. The problem is that the current versions of wine and some other
apps will not work with the new thread system that is in glibc 2.3
Until the wine developers come up with
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:17:36 -0800, you wrote:
>Of course, I would note that "RH" is much more than the GPL Red Hat Linux
>product. I don't see NPTL going into RHEL, so that is still _very_ much
>viable for a corporate desktop. What I see is a lot of people that were
Ironically enough Red Ha
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:34:40 -0600, you wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:28:52AM -0800, Eric Burke wrote:
>> The bottom line is for a corporate desktop, RH no
>> longer serves the purpose.
>
>The bottom line is that RH9 is not targetted for the corporate desktop.
>That's what Red Hat Linux Ente
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:59:22 -0800, you wrote:
>Jumping the gun on RH9 was a smart move.
>
>They can EOL 7.x and of course nobody is gonna load 9.x on production
>boxes which means they only have to support 8.x.
>
>Not a bad idea at all.
Except for the fact that both 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 8.0 have s
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:50:18 -0600, you wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:39:47PM -0700, Guy Fraser wrote:
>> I don't know if you can trust security updates any more. The last glibc
>> security update almost made
>> me loose my job because it wrecked software that was required by our
>> support
On 29 Mar 2003 22:42:15 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 15:24, Guy Fraser wrote:
>
>
>> Marie-Thérèse Lorentzen wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> >--
>> >Farewell neighbor. Thank you for giving us a safe place for so many
>> >years.
>> >Fred Rodgers - 1928-2003
>
> Why do you quot
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:03:41 -0600, you wrote:
>"Red Hat will provide errata maintenance for AT LEAST 12 months [... and]
>may extend errata maintenance for certain popular releases[.]"
>
>Yes, up2date MAY go away for your RH release 12 months after it came out,
>but there is no certainty that i
On 19 Oct 2002 08:59:05 -0600, you wrote:
>Anyone have any luck building and/or installing Evolution 1.2 beta from
>Ximian? I've started playing around with the RH7.3 source RPMs, but have
>not successfully built them. Looks like quite a few dependency issues.
>If anyone has this running, please d
On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 14:32:27 +0200, you wrote:
>Just installled a box with Psyche - whole thing (custom - install
>everything), a fresh install - not an upgrade.
>
>Looks nice BTW :-)
>
>Odd thing.
>
>I can't get either 1.3.1_05 or 1.4.1 Sun JDK to work.
>
>Using the self extracting binary (non-RP
On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:51:27 -0700, you wrote:
>** Reply to message from Gerald Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 06 Oct
>2002 12:31:25 -0400
>
>> I don't think anything but the latest version of 1.4.0 or 1.4.1 will
>> work with the version of glibc used i
16 matches
Mail list logo
