On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 12:32:03PM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> So will a slackware with the 2.2 kernel and glibc2.1 beat debian and
> redhat?
Yes, in terms of unstability for sure.
If it would be as easy as getting glibc 2.1 from cvs and the kernel from
kernel.org and recompiling the softwar
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 01:14:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> That depends. If you think it will, then it will. If you think it
> won't, then it won't. Each distribution is a sum of its parts. No one
Debian is more than the sum of its upstream parts. Extra stuff
like dpkg, update-rc.d, upd
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 10:53:12PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It wasn't that long ago (a few months?) that Slackware released 3.6 (2.0.35)
> ... isn't it two short for a new release?
Depends. Both Red Hat and Slackware have had new versions out the door
in 2 months, and new versious o
Steve Lamb dixit:
> home I run my Laptop on Debian 2.1, my "main" machine on some portions of
> Potato. My main machine runs kernel 2.2.1, my laptop 2.0.34. Functionally,
> they are identical to one another. I telnet in, I run X aps, no big deal.
> They work. I really can't tell the differenc
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 12:32:03PM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> So will a slackware with the 2.2 kernel and glibc2.1 beat debian and
> redhat?
That depends. If you think it will, then it will. If you think it
won't, then it won't. Each distribution is a sum of its parts. No one
individ
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
>
> I saw a posting on linuxtoday.com that a slackware 4.0 beta was uploaded
> to ftp.cdrom.com. It is based on glibc2.1 and kernel 2.2.3
>
> So will a slackware with the 2.2 kernel and glibc2.1 beat debian and
> redhat?
>
> (not that debian has to
6 matches
Mail list logo
