Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:55:27 +0000 | From | Steve Dodd <> | Subject | Re: [OFFTOPIC]: MS Porting Office to Linux? |
| |
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 11:15:07AM +0100, Harald Koenig wrote:
> pardon me, but is 2.1 released at all ?
Yes.
> suggesting commercial/serious developers to use the > latest/greated/internally-released/work-in-progress/for- > -your-eyes-only/to-be-updated-tomorrow version of glibc isn't what > I'd think is the best for the image of Linux as stable, rock solid > and upward-compatible system.
glibc 2.0 was (according to the web page I read yesterday) supposed to be a developers release only. glibc 2.1 is/was intended to be the stable release.
> I'm really disapointed to see "get the every single latest flee from the bazar" > way of thinking -- it's not fun at all if you're trying to get real work done > with Linux.
So use vi and *roff :)
> some netscape 4.0x and 4.5 versions for glibc 2.0.x with more > recent glibc versions (don't remember exact version), and > all tested combinations chocked horribly, so I just stepped back > from pre-2.1 at that time. haven't tried again since then though...
Developers releases won't necessarily be backwardly / binary compatible. Stable releases are / should be.
-- There was a young man of St. John's / Who wanted to bugger the swans. / But the loyal hall porter / Said, "Pray take my daughter! / Those birds are reserved for the dons."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |