From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 26 10:50:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF60D16A4CE for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:50:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (A17-250-248-46.apple.com [17.250.248.46]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E56243D1D for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:50:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lomion@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin07-en2 [10.13.10.152]) by smtpout.mac.com (8.12.6/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id i0QIoVEZ006520; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.116] (bgp585760bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.198.236]) (authenticated bits=0)i0QIoN28027944; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:50:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040126183938.046fcec0@imap.sfu.ca> References: <4013EA9D.6040808@cream.org> <20040125134151.M52260@mail.tacorp.net> <20040125185753.GA12995@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <40141B3D.9070901@cream.org> <20040125194721.GA28036@xor.obsecurity.org> <40143CC3.6010709@cream.org> <401514D3.7020808@iconoplex.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040126133123.0465b398@imap.sfu.ca> <40152488.8070309@iconoplex.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040126183938.046fcec0@imap.sfu.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7D8253A2-5030-11D8-9620-000393A335A2@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Lawrence Sica Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:50:20 -0500 To: Colin Percival X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Less messages to FreeBSD.org lists X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:50:35 -0000 On Jan 26, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Colin Percival wrote: > At 14:30 26/01/2004, Paul Robinson wrote: >> Colin Percival wrote: >>> I'd say that a more useful option would be to add code which >>> "pings" a server every day with a request for binary security >>> updates. >> >> Oooh.... now we're heading into the realms of Windows Update, and >> we know how badly that can behave at times. > > Yes and no. Windows Update can behave badly. But I'm not talking > about Windows Update; I'm talking about FreeBSD Update, which is very > well behaved (and *much* faster, for that matter). > > Colin Percival > > Ever see the OS X Software Update? It works really well. --Larry