Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:21:43 -0800 (PST) From: opentrax@email.com To: grog@lemis.com Cc: lnb@FreeBSDsystems.COM, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: How can we be more effective? (was: Re: accessing portal site) Message-ID: <200011130821.AAA05297@spammie.svbug.com> In-Reply-To: <20001113164546.O32175@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 Nov, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Sunday, 12 November 2000 at 22:10:28 -0800, opentrax@email.com wrote: >> >> I should finish by saying that while this person's information >> is important to those who advocate *BSD. There seems to be >> no one willing to 'step up to the plate' and deal with this >> information so that we might make effective use of it. > > Sorry, maybe I need to clarify my statement. I don't have an issue > with Lanny copying the list on the followups; as you say, it's > certainly of interest, especially since he has been successful. My > concern is the same as yours, that he shouldn't have copied us on his > initial message to Intel. I wouldn't have objected if he had sent the > message to Intel and then forwarded it to us. > I guess I should appoligize also. I didn't note the message being sent to Intel. I'm not sure Intel would like us spamming their support people un-intentionally on any matter. The point being, as stated, we should stick to matters that help *BSD in 'advocacy'. As for Lanny's point, it clear to me more needs to be done. The question is How can we be more effective? Lanny's (indirect) point is that M$ takes every opportunity it can to suppress OSs that it can't control. Currently, it's busy razing Linux. But we can be assured that M$ will get to us, especially if we can answer this question. The question, again, is: How can we be more effective? I'm not speaking about something we can measure easily. We have a combined self-interest in making *BSD the OS of choice, especially in areas each of us has a $$ interest. The area where work is needed is in the area of Public Relations. Currently, some points are being lost in the heat of the moment. One point, which we habitually fail to mention is the multiple trees that *BSD supports. Sure we call the 2.x and 3.x tree retired, but the code is there and if I'm not mistaken a security bug or a panic situation will be cause for a new release. So, if I'm not mistaken, this means that developers that still need support on previous version have it to an extent. Is this point I'm making correct? Can someone verify it for me? Jessem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011130821.AAA05297>