From owner-freebsd-security Tue Dec 10 12:57:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA29448 for security-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:57:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.trifecta.com (www.trifecta.com [206.245.150.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA29438 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dev@localhost) by www.trifecta.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA10944; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:57:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:57:31 -0500 (EST) From: Dev Chanchani To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: Nate Williams , jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I think you should go get a copy of BSDI and shaddup. On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > >Shut up and get outta my way, since all you are doing is *hindering* the > >process of making things better. > > > >You *ARE* part of the problem, and not the solution. > > Yes, I am a problem because I am not satisfied with the posturing that you > make in your own little sandbox. If you want your system to be taken > seriously, you need to recognize that there is more to a system that just > the code. I happen to think that a major problem in acceptance is > (perceived) (lack of) "customer support". Jordan has made great progress in > making installation more "user friendly". We also need to make sure that we > address other needs of the "users". > Particularly if the intention is to target the commercial user rather than > the home hobbyist, you must remember that they need STABLE, SUPPORTED > systems. > > What you call a "release" has, by industry standards, had virtually no testing. > It needs to be field tested for some time before being placed into critical > service. In the interim, the users STILL need a SUPPORTED system. > > >ps. Apologies to those folks who think I'm being a bit harsh. I've just > >had it with Richard's 'pie-in-the-sky' solutions that never materialize > >that awlays seem to involve more of my time and none of his. > > On the contrary, I proposed that this effort involve participants other > than the "developers". However, it is your wish to restrict the "FreeBSD > organization" to your closed group which places the burden on yourselves. > > You (conveniently) forget that just a few messages back, I offered to do > the additional testing to assure that the changes going into 2.2 were also > appropriate for 2.1. > > I am both willing and able to support the source tree for 2.1 separate from > the main cvs tree. However, I do not think that is really a good idea. If > FreeBSD is to gain from any effort to support the reliable aging system, it > MUST be done under the banner of the organization. If that is done, I feel > it only prudent that the master copy of things be kept by the organization > in a unified manner. > > And you have now convinced me that, WRT the build system, your offer to > consider a "proof of concept" rather than the full thing was insincere and > any effort that I have made toward developing that demonstration has been > wasted effort. :-( > > >