Does YDL use unreleased/buggy redhat-versions of KDE and XFree86?

[Bill Fink]

On Sun Mar 23 2003, Markus Deistler wrote:

> YDL 3 is said to be very similar to Redhat 8, and the screenshots I see
> on the YDL's website also remind me of the Redhat-stuff, so I am
> wondering whether all these things Redhat stands accused of also applies
> to YDL.
> 
> More on that can be read here:
>  www.mosfet.org/noredhat.html
> 
> For those in a hurry the website mentioned above says that 
> RH created a new fork of KDE (and also X) without any cooperation or
> sharing ("secret hacks") with the core developer teams and without any
> experienced QT/KDE-programmers, and thus heavily screwing up the KDE
> (and X) codebase and introducing compile problems with gcc 3.2, new bugs
> and software conflicts with other open source projects. So RH is
> actually damaging the free software projects it is profiting from. It
> does so also with the gcc-, wine- and even Gnome-project ....
> 
> If YDL's desktop was indeed based on that "screwed up" stuff of Redhat 
> it would be sad sad sad ...

Well I built XFree86 4.3.0 RPMs from a RedHat source RPM, and installed
them on YDL 2.3, and they work great, fixing several longstanding annoying
problems such as weird green and purple colors with the ATI Xv driver when
displaying YUY2 video (such as when using xine's goom visualization plugin
on audio-only streams), and the more serious problem of the NVIDIA "nv"
Xv driver hanging the system when the X server is restarted (such as when
logging out of KDE).  I haven't experienced any problems thus far with
using RedHat's latest released X code, and am looking forward to trying
out YDL 3.0 at the earliest possible opportunity.

As far as gcc 3.2, I don't have any direct personal experience yet, but
the only major issue I've heard about so far is mixing a kernel built
with 3.2 with modules (such as MOL) built with 2.95, or vice versa (so
just don't do it).  There are always going to be some bumps in the road
with major new releases of any complex pieces of software, but they're
generally worth it for all the new capabilities, such as I believe
Altivec support in gcc 3.2 (although I'm not sure about it's level
of maturity and stability just yet).

						-Bill