glibc advice

[Michael Hipp]

Tony Alfrey wrote:
> Net Llama! wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Tony Alfrey wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>>> No, in fact most of the time I run a Mac, which runs like most linux
>>> distros *should* run.
>>> But back to glibc-2.3.
>>> Is it mythology that if I upgrade to 2.3, apps compiled on 2.2.X will
>>> not run?
>> Its false.  Why you're beating the Caldera dead horse, I can't understand.
> 
> What difference does it make?
> It has a kernel, it has X, it has QT libs, it has KDE.
> I know where everything is in it.  Think of it like my version of LFS.
> 
> I'll give you an example of why I'm not running something fancy and new, 
> like SuSE 10.1.  If you've been watching the SuSE list, there are a lot 
> of people whose experience with SuSE has been, shall we say, less than 
> pleasant.  And I will say that, for example, YAST has gotten sloppier 
> from SuSE 8.1 to 9.1.  Now I know you are a FC fanatic, but I can 
> remember a raging debate about whether or not Red Hat had committed a 
> cardinal sin by placing KDE in directories all over the map instead of 
> in /opt.  So that's why I beat this horse;  because it doesn't fall on 
> its face a quarter lap out of the gates and break every bone in it's 
> left hind leg.

Your reasoning really escapes me. You're gonna choose a 5+ year old distro 
from a long dead company because RH might should have put KDE in /opt?

Caldera divorced us a long time. Let her go, man.

If you're wary of SUSE, why not run Ubuntu? Or Fedora? Or Slackware? Or 
Debian? They all "just work". And at least you don't have the headache of 
having to do something as major as a glibc update right off the bat! If you 
put that much work into *any* distro, it ought to be working great.

To each his own. But personally I kinda enjoy learning new things. Especially 
when there is an ongoing payoff for the effort.

Michael