On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
> I don't like people spreading bad information, if you can't give a decent explanation
> of something, then please, keep it to yourself. Bad information is worse than no
> information.

 Will do.  (And just remember that you cursed yourself to a lengthy 
flamewar on hypocrisy if you *ever* give out bad information.)

> >  If that would take less than 15 minutes (slow CD-ROM on the install), 
> > sure.  If not, it's just wasting time.  But that still assumes that I'd 
> > want 7.3 on that machine.  How hard is this for you to understand?
> 
> Mandrake takes 15 minutes just to get into the installer and past the
> installation questions. Like I said, I don't care what distribution/version
> of a distribution you use, but don't bitch and whine when you're running an old
> one and *gasp* it isn't being kept *UP TO DATE WITH THE NEWEST SOFTWARE*, 
> (including the kernel, with the NTFS fixes) exactly what you've been saying 
> you don't want. If you want your "stable" version of redhat, continue using
> 7.2, do not complain that the latest 7.2 has a broken ntfs module. if you
> want a redhat kernel, without a broken ntfs module, upgrade to 7.3. 

 It doesn't take 15 minutes if you use most of the defaults and make a 
minimal system.  I was going for speed, not a quality, long-lasting 
installation.  I just needed to get to the data.
 Just for beer & skittles, I tried "apt-get dist-upgrade"ing a box from 
7.2 to 7.3.  When I left the office, it was at 30 minutes, and not done.  
Not a quick fix, I guess.
 You've yet to point out my bitching/whining/complaining on the subject.  
I stand by my (poorly worded) warning.  I keep my machines upgraded within 
their release.

> you can of course, always compile your own kernel, but that would require
> upgrading to newer (potentially unstable!) kernels. 

 Oh, yeah, I love kernels that corrupt my filesystems when I do something 
stupid, like unmount them.

> "stable, reliable servers", you mean the ones you're rebooting to drop an
> NTFS hard drive into for data recovery? RedHat 7.2 is no more stable than
> 7.3, you've complained about all sorts of things in 7.3 regarding stability
> but never given a real example.

 I never claimed I tried to mount the NTFS drive in a server.  As 
previously stated, that was a development machine, my RedHat 7.2 RPM build 
host.  It'd be fairly useless as such if it were running 7.3, then, 
wouldn't it?
 I admit, 7.3 left a very sour taste in my mouth initially, when it hard 
locked a machine which has been *extremely* reliable running anything 
else.  (Okay, it had some stability issues when it ran NT 4.0, but those 
days are far behind us.)  I didn't have time to deal with that, so I just 
reinstalled 7.2 and was done with it.

> >  When have I bitched about RedHat?  When have I whined?  When have I 
> > complained?  I don't think you want to start flinging mud around.  All I 
> > did was voice a (poorly worded) warning meant to save people time, 
> > frustration, and confusion.  I'll remember to keep my mouth shut in the 
> > future, lest I anger people.
> 
> The url was fine, unfortunately the person who wrote it is also biased.

 Yes, I realize this.
 Again, you're ignoring my request for elaboration.  Why is this?

> >  This has the feel of a fight picked merely for the fun in fighting.  Big 
> > surprise.
> 
> You /were/ the one asking to be flamed, besides, it's better than the stupid
> troll vo-tech thread =)

 When was I asking to be flamed?  I must have missed typing that.
 You've got to learn that not every imperfection is an invitation for a 
lengthy argument.  Tend to make a lot less enemies that way.
 And yeah, I guess I'm not sharp enough to realize I'm being talked down 
to on the other thread; I went to a technical college for two years.

     Jima