🚀 go-pugleaf

Slackware is not "a bit broken". I have found Slackware to me *more* stable
than RedHat, and more comfortable to use at the command line. In my
dual-booting machine (RH 5.2 and Slack 3.4, before I finally deleted RH in
disgust) I have had no problems with X at all.  Still don't have problems,
for that matter - but then it *is* 3.4 (haven't tried 3.6 yet).

To dual boot, I just added the second RH partition to lilo, and chose
between them on boot.

George-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never reply by email as a) I don't give out my real email address freely,
and b) it stops other NG users from reading the solutions to problems
I can be contacted thru hurro(a)hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
> Well,
> 
> You would have too different partitions... one for redhat, the other for
> slackware.  If you do full installations you'll find you have allot of
> the same stuff though.  Then if you want to... you can mount the
> slackware partition in redhat and the redhat partition in slackware. 
> From there you should be able to run most apps from the other
> distrubution... but you'll probably have to compile some apps again
> though... for each distrubution.
> 
> But I wouldn't recommend Slackware... it's a bit broken... it's not
> thread safe... and the x server that i came with Slackware 3.6 is a bit
> unstable...
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Lunn
> Melbourne, Australia
> ICQ: 19255837
>