> I too see the 6.1 -> 6.2 upgrade as an incremental step toward a RH 7.0,
> which will most likely include the stuff you said (kernel 2.4, gcc-3.x,
> apache 2.x), plus stuff like XFree86 4.0.something, bash2 as the *standard* bash
> (can't we toss bash1 out the window yet, or at least do like Mandrake has done,
> and reverse the roles of bash(1|2)?
I believe there _was_ a fair bit of hacking being done on bash 2 intended for
release on zoot, but it seems that some scripts which were written on bash1
are broken under the newer shell. As I understand it, RH has decided to stay
with bash1 for now, in accordance with their stance on backwards
compatibility
Personally, I'm all for this. Backwards compatibility means that, although
certain sacrifices have to be made:-
1) the default options run on as large a range of systems as possible; hence
the i386 kernel default.
2) setups/scripts that have previously functioned ok don't usually have to be
completely reworked every time there's a system upgrade.
If the user isn't satisfied with the functionality of the distro defaults, he/she is
probably in a position to install and set up the alternatives, anyhow. RedHat's
attitude means that
1) Their system works adequately for the majority.
2) Big Businesses' systems don't keep crashing (let's face it, the funding
from these guys is largely what keeps RH going, and _any_ Linux distro's
main advantage over M$ in these circles is stability).
3) There is scope for alternative distros, such as Mandrake, to recompile and
issue alternative setups, thus stopping RH becoming quite the kind of all-
encompassing, careless giant that we all have come to hate, and providing
valuable feedback (i.e. drastically reduced market share in some sectors) to
RH if they lose the plot too much.
Vive la difference.
C.
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
