X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:58:02 +0100 (BST)
From: "Dr H. T. Leung" <htl10 AT cus DOT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
To: david <david AT kalifornia DOT com>
cc: pcg AT goof DOT com, sleas AT ixion DOT honeywell DOT com, beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
Subject: Re: libc-5.4.22?!?
In-Reply-To: <199809150935.CAA03343@Midnight.Hacking.in.the.land.of.Kalifornia.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980915123426.4650B-100000@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1331
Lines: 24

Look, I don't understand why this has deteriorated to a debate on libc5 vs
libc 6 and Redhat vs Slackware. There *is* a Redhat libc-5.4.46 package
(which I told the original poster right away after the posting) at: 

ftp.redhat.com/pub/contrib/i386/libc-5.4.46-1rh42.i386.rpm

(or at least that's what my nearest sunsite mirror said where it is: 
http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/
Mirrors/ftp.redhat.com/pub/contrib/i386/libc-5.4.46-1rh42.i386.rpm)

Personally I think people who said Redhat/Suse/whatever being better than
Slackware/whatever are snobs. While Redhat is no doubt easier to install
and maintain, Slackware no doubt have less of the "bleeding-edge" 
developements, you can run a perfectly functional system with either, if
you know what you are doing. After all, it is the same kernel, and same
mostly-GNU-based software suite. 

I actually don't like the Redhat "rpm" concept - when I install something,
I want to know exactly where every component goes. It is probably a bit
far-fetched to compare RPM's with the MS Install-Shield; but then there
are people who thinks anything GUI "clickable" is better than
non-clickables, and anything hidding all the details is better than
letting you know what is happening; and anything rpm is better than
tgz/configure.  Suit yourself. If you can make the computer works for you.