From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Feb 5 13:53:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA04832 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:53:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sundial.sundial.net (gme@sundial.sundial.net [204.181.150.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA03833; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:48:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gme@sundial.sundial.net) Received: from localhost (gme@localhost) by sundial.sundial.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA07587; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:37:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:37:44 -0500 (EST) From: George Ellenburg To: Rob Levandowski cc: jkh@FreeBSD.ORG, davidg@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, Matt Stein Subject: Re: Year 2000 compliance statement? In-Reply-To: <199802052122.QAA04584@phoebe.accinet.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe questions" I extend a sincere apology to the recipients of the apparent message from my mail account; my workstation was logged in while I was away from my keyboard and a fellow co-worker thought it would be "humorous" to send a message posing as myself. The employee has been reprimanded. Sincerely, George M. Ellenburg Systems Administrator, Sundial Internet Services On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Rob Levandowski wrote: > [In response to a polite request for a Year 2000 compliance statement, > which my company requires of all hardware and software vendors -- > commercial or volunteer -- whose products are currently in use...] > > On 2/5/98 2:49 PM, George Ellenburg (gme@sundial.net) wrote: > > >I think I speak for everyone in the FreeBSD Community when I say that > >FreeBSD is a FREE Operating system, just like Linux. As far as Y2K goes, > >it inherently is compatible (the operating system) but some of the apps > >which run on it may not be. > > > >Tell your bosses though that if they want a Y2K statement they can spend > >$5000 and buy BSD/OS 3.1. Otherwise, you're stuck without a compliance > >statement. A community made up of nothing but volunteers doesn't need to > >worry with this kind of stuff. > > 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 . > > > > Robert Levandowski > UNIX Systems Administrator > ACC TeleCom > robl@phoebe.accinet.net > >