manhattan, cartman or enigma?

[TomP]

In reading all the hype about the Pensacola release, I
am running into overkill and bugs in Enigma. I just want
to use Linux as a desktop and internet browser.
I have manhattan (5.1) and cartman (6.1) as well as
enigma (7.1)...

I need one of the old-timers (in Red Hat, that is) to tell
me how they compare, and which version would you recommend between manhattan and cartman... This
enigma has been buggy, to me.

New is not always better, eh? I am already hearing that
Mandrake 8.1 was buggy, wait for 8.2, and now I hear
8.2 is buggy, and go with 8.1! Well, I am in redhat, anyway..
but it illustrates why I ask the question.

You guru/gods here, RANT a little.
(I learn more from a good rant, anyway!)
Thanks.

TomP

[JimH]

The enigma release is 7.2. What are you using 7.1 or 7.2?

Have you updated your system with all the available updates?
Exactly what kind of problems are you having?
What do you mean by "running into overkill"?

Jim H

[TomP]

Jim,
my mistake :-[. I mistyped the ENIGMA number, which I
do have. Had a lot of problems reconfiguring the kernel,
getting some things to work right, just general stuff...
and thought this was all Linux...since I am still new.
But some other old timers suggested I go back to an
earlier version, claiming that 7.1 and 7.2 were "buggy."

So I remember YOU, specifically, and sort of phrased
the question hoping to get your answer, particularly, Jim,
when I saw your mention of Pensacola.

I just should've asked how you would compare 5.1
Red Hat with 6.1, right!? That'll teach me not to beat around
the bush!

I have all three, by the way, on disk... Came with books.
So I can easily put on 5.1 or 6.1.
If it helps to know, I have a notebook, and only am using
it to go online and browse and that sort of thing...
No server, no printing, no graphic art work being done,
no special projects, no networking.
Just wanted a good, stable browsing and email system
that was virusproof, basically, and wormproof, and secure.

SO, let me try again...
JIM, would you recommend 5.1 or 6.1 or would there
be any real difference for me under my circumstances?

And my apologies for being so obtuse.

TomP

[JimH]

But some other old timers suggested I go back to an
earlier version, claiming that 7.1 and 7.2 were "buggy."

That is "their" personal opinion. If you want another one, I consider the 7.1 and 7.2 releases to be very good. The only problem alot of people had with 7.2 is the printing when it was first released. Red Hat decided to make a major change to the printing system in 7.2 to close to the release and they got burned. I would be curious to know why they consider the releases to be "buggy".

when I saw your mention of Pensacola.

Pensacola is the beta for Red Hat's Advanced Server Edition. The just released Skipjack is the beta for the next regular release.

Just wanted a good, stable browsing and email system
that was virusproof, basically, and wormproof, and secure.

SO, let me try again...
JIM, would you recommend 5.1 or 6.1 or would there
be any real difference for me under my circumstances?

Red Hat is currently only supporting bug and security fixes back to 6.2. I expect them to not be doing that forever. I would just install a trimmed down 7.1 or 7.2 system. Installing just the packages you need. More then likely alot of the problems you are having it just because of your being new to Linux.

Jim H

[TomP]

Thank you, Jim.
Now you know why I asked. (Also thanks for that SKIPJACK
cluing-in. I just assumed... Hmmm..Seawolf, Skipjack..
Submarines?)
I thought I was being sold some ocean side property in
New Mexico...
I WAS TOLD that the earlier versions might be faster, though, and that MAY be so. And require less resources,
but is this true?And I don't print with my laptop, so the problem with 7.2 isn't a problem for me at this time.
Er, another question: When you say RedHat doesn't "support.."
what does that mean? I have been over to their site and
I can't find much support, and I bought a BOXED version.
Just a referral to archives, and a forum that is full of unanswered questions. I kept hoping I had missed something...So when you brought that up, I thought I'd
ask this NOW. I am not sure what "support" means here.

Oh, if you wrote that article about Rush Limbaugh, good
for you! There is not any higher special interest than the
entertainment industry and JOURNALISM, especially.
Good insight.

See? Another reason I asked you.
Next time, I will be straight and to the point.
Promise.
TomP

[JimH]

I WAS TOLD that the earlier versions might be faster, though, and that MAY be so. And require less resources,
but is this true?
Er, another question: When you say RedHat doesn't "support.."
what does that mean?

Yes, Gnome 1.2 from 7.1 is "faster" then Gnome 1.4 in 7.2 on older hardware. But most of the "faster" is just the difference between the file managers. GMC in Gnome 1.2 and Nautilus in Gnome 1.4. If you turn off the "previews", I think Nautilus runs very well on slower hardware.

What I mean by "doesn't support" is that they no longer release bugfixes or security updates for any versions older then 6.2.

Jim H

[TomP]

Jim, good sir,
I thank you so much for that explanation..
Now the comments all make sense to me.
Oh, and thanks for defining support--

And as security and bugfixes are important,
I can see the argument that says the NEWEST
IS THE BEST.

Tom P