From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Oct 2 13: 3: 0 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2143E37B502 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07745; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:00:18 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA18288; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:00:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:00:17 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200010022000.OAA18288@nomad.yogotech.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "John Howie" Cc: "Poul-Henning Kamp" , "Brett Glass" , chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ftpd bug in FreeBSD through at least 3.4 In-Reply-To: <036301c02caa$ebc17300$fd01a8c0@pacbell.net> References: <21970.970515180@critter> <036301c02caa$ebc17300$fd01a8c0@pacbell.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ Moved to -chat ] > > >> >>3.4 is a dead branch, 2.x even more so. > > >> > > > >> >People are still running it 3.x, though. LOTS of people. > > >> > > >> Doesn't change the fact that it's a dead branch. > > > > > >Doesn't change the fact that "LOTS of people" are still running it... > > >Geez, what a curt, rude, throw-your-hands-up answer. > > > > > >Are you saying that if we found a terrible bug (not this easy one) > > >somewhere critical in 3.5.%d, we'd all have to immediatly upgrade? - Jy@ > > > > Yes, I am saying that. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > And this is why Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, et al will NEVER beat a supported > pay-for-use Operating System like Windows in the eyes of real-world > business-critical system administrators and CIOs. Really? Explain to me how Win95/NT 'supports' it's easier with day-day bugfixes in a manner that's better than FreeBSD? Win98 has the 'critical update', but it's basically the same as FreeBSD's CVSup. Packaging is better, and it's easier to use, but with user support FreeBSD's update system could be as easy to use. However, back to the issue at hand. Microsoft doesn't support old OS's like Win95 and NT3.5/4.0. Heck, support for Win98 just ended with the release of WinME. There are *lots* of critical bugs in Win95, NT3.5, and NT 4.0 that exist today. Microsoft's response to the bugfixes is 'We don't support older versions of the OS. You must upgrade to a supported OS (WinME, Win2K), in order to get up to date support.) I won't even begin with Solaris. :) > Of course, all the egos, moaning, and bitching don't help either. Ain't that the truth. Listening to Steve Ballmer's or Scott McNeally's speeches are like that, though I've gotten used to it. :) :) :) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message