> After all, even if you do work for redhat, the way redhat actively damages
I work for Red Hat. I can pick up the phone any day of the week and work
for Caldera, Transmeta, SuSE and others I expect. So I dont think you can
work on the basis they have any influence over me.
> same) and free softwrae projects JUST NOW should not leave you quietly
> obeying (mind you, I am not the only one saying this).
The big reasons I worked for Red Hat is that they don't do half proprietary
things like some of the other folks and they have zero contractual control
over what I choose to do.
> Redhat certainly is not special compared to other distros. But redhat is
> the largest one, and they started the trend to monopolize the market at
> the cost of morality, ethics and free software.
Which is why I think you are a nut, because your technical comments don't
match the above. If I thought Red Hat was damaging free software I wouldnt
be working for them. I'd probably be working for another truely open source
vendor of which there are several.
Various people I associate with being senior in both glibc and gcc (people
like Ulrich Drepper and Jeff Law) were involved in the compiler and glibc
choices, and being as close as possible to the standards (including the LSB
draft) was an important guiding choice.
That means shipping a compiler on advice of what will be compatible C++ wise
with the future, and shipping a different compiler for the kernel. 2.95 is
not compatible with egcs and you can take your wrath out on whoever moved
to the temporary ABI in 2.95 first - whomever that was - I don't know, or
on the gcc people who couldnt keep the ABI stable. The latter is pointless
since they (probably rightfully) blame the C++ standardisation people for
changing all the scoping rules.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:27 EST