On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:32:40PM +1000, Michael Mansour wrote: > > For me, I just don't like to see "bad press" about an OS that was production > quality and ran in production just fine, sure it had a couple of hiccups, just > like any other OS does, I bumped into a considerable number of such "hiccups" with RH8. This was a while ago and I may not remember all details but basically regular expressions (grep, perl, awk, sed, ...) were broken and/or extremely slow, emacs and other editors had weird issues, man was broken totally, a strange stuff was happening randomnly on desktops, whatever you touched related on i18n had big chances to misbehave, other problems. Binaries for rpm I replaced very quickly with what was available from www.rpm.org, so this was not a show stopper, but other things kept me from considering that distro for anything but a test installation. I think that a switch to utf8 was underlying most of that and switching to other LANG was not a good enough answer. From my point of view RH9 was a huge step forward. This is what my wife used on her laptop, and this is a tougher coundition that it may sound, :-) although now it is FC2. > but to say the least it was certainly still better > than Windows production servers. Well, by such criteria mostly anything will be acceptable. How this is called? "Damning by a faint praise"? :-) Michal -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
