Re: Defective Red Hat Distribution poorly represents Linux

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:53:19AM -0500, Charles Turner, Ph.D. wrote:
[snip]
> I was terribly wrong. This Red Hat version is irrevocably defective.
[snip]
> (3)	It "sort of" worked. However, network daemons kept
> 	dropping core. X would eventually crash, leaving the
> 	terminal in an unusable state, etc.
> 
> (4)	It is impossible to build a known working kernel on the
> 	machine because the linker, `ld` crashes:
[snip]
> 	This shows that the problems are not because of a
> 	defective machine.
[snip]
>           I speak only for myself, which is enough of a problem.

The only thing defective I can see here is you:

1. You posted this to a totally inappropriate mailing list.
2. You posted with a tone that shows you are totally uninterested in getting
	help with your problems.
3. You have failed to use the proper support channels.
3. You trouble shooting skills are defective:
	If you think that a Linux distribution that works just fine for test of
	thousands of people fails to a buggy linker then you are a fool.

	Just because it works with other software doesn't mean that the 
	memory is good. If you have a single bad bit, then you are very
	sensitive on alignment a different piece of software may have no
	issues.

But why should I expect anything reasonable from a poster at
analogic.com? (apologies to those there who have improved!) :)