Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:11:29 +0100 (CET) From: Konrad Heuer <kheuer@gwdu60.gwdg.de> To: Rob Levandowski <robl@phoebe.accinet.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Year 2000 compliance statement? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980206085744.9160A-100000@gwdu60.gwdg.de> In-Reply-To: <199802052122.QAA04584@phoebe.accinet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Rob Levandowski wrote: > Thanks so much. With a response like this, my work to build support for > FreeBSD within the company is worthless; I will be forced to cast aside > my investment in this OS, and redeploy all my work on other platforms > whose vendors do recognize the Y2K problem. > > This, for the price of a simple note stating that the OS is Y2K > compliant, or that users must apply certain patches to the core OS to be > Y2K compliant. > > Previously, I had been a strong supporter of FreeBSD. This note is > making me reconsider that. The advantages of FreeBSD aren't worth this > level of arrogance and hubris. If I wanted a "tough sh*t" attitude, I > could run Microsoft software. It's too bad that the FreeBSD "community > made up of nothing of volunteers" doesn't feel the need to worry about > their OS being acceptable to a business world concerned about losing > everything on January 1, 2000. Apparently FreeBSD isn't "just like > Linux," because I was able to find a Linux web site stating Y2K > compliance levels <http://www.linux.org.uk/mbug.html>. I agree. FreeBSD is a well-behaving operating system for serious applications, and thus the FreeBSD community shouldn't neglect questions like this. Konrad Heuer, GWDG, Goettingen, Germany (kheuer@gwdu60.gwdg.de)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980206085744.9160A-100000>