rampant speculation

[TWGuilderson at cvs.com (Guilderson, Tom W.)]

 >Given the 7.1 beta as an indication, they're using "GCC 2.96-RH,"
 >whatever that means.  I assume they're planning on sticking with that
 >until gcc 3.0 in RH8.

Even gcc 2.95 is not what I would use at this point. I plan on sticking with
gcc 2.91.66 which is the recommended version for building 2.4 series
kernels. I have had trouble compiling using 2.95 with 2.4.0 (hove not tried
2.4.1 yet). RH 6.2 comes with 2.91.66 and that is one of the reasons I am
sticking with a system that started out as RH 6.2. It runs 2.4.0 fine so far
without any problems. Still working on getting sound to work on 2.4 in my
free time (maybe next year!).

If RH, Suse, Turbo, Debian etc. come out with 2.4, I wont be switching
unless the compiler is 2.91.66. Having a reliable and consistent compiler
and libraries across the distros is a key to success. When the kernel
developers state that a version of the compiler is not safe, why do the
vendors still use it????? 

What will RedHat do - something stupid because they think they control the
Linux distribution space (They already do).  But that is what could open the
door for another vendor going for stability to gain a foothold. I know Suse
prides itself on being first with many things - anyone know what version of
gcc and libc the next Suse will ship?? Maybe they have the opportunity to
take the lead by being first with 2.4 and shipping a solid stable
development platform.






-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).