From owner-freebsd-bugs Mon Dec 28 13:50:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA27495 for freebsd-bugs-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:50:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from u2.bbrown.com ([192.30.147.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA27476 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:50:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pekarske_bob@burr-brown.com) From: pekarske_bob@burr-brown.com Received: from coral.bbrown.com by u2.bbrown.com with SMTP (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA16252; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:49:54 -0700 Received: by coral.bbrown.com(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 072566E8.0077FF17 ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:50:40 -0700 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: BB1 To: Matthew Hunt Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, pekarske_bob@u2.bbrown.com Message-Id: <072566E8.007691E6.00@coral.bbrown.com> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:50:01 -0700 Subject: Re: Y2K Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I really think I understand your point, but I write not as a contributor to your software but as a consumer of it. If I had written a module, I would be in a good possition to evaluate my code for Y2K compliance. But I did not. I am looking at FreeBSD as another contender for our corporate platforms. I like it because it is open source. The low cost is secondary. Other vendors have done extensive Y2k testing of there products. Your page gives the impression you have not. I believe most companies will not / cannot do extensive testing of purchased products for Y2k. They will seek vendor compliance statements and then chose a course of action - usually upgrade or replace. I believe it would be in FreeBSD's best interests to be able to provide an upgrade path. ============================================== If someone had organized a Y2K compliance project, and was looking for volunteers to check different parts, I would volunteer to take a piece. I would be able/willing to become sufficiently expert on one piece if it would contribute to the larger effort. However, I am in no position to tackle the entire certification. Most of us use the open source in reactive fashion. We experience a bug, we read the relevant code, and we try to fix it. Y2K requires a proactive solution. Thank you for listening. Matthew Hunt on 12/28/98 02:32:39 PM To: Bob Pekarske , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG cc: pekarske_bob@u2.bbrown.com (bcc: Bob Pekarske/Tuc/BB1) Subject: Re: Y2K On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 02:10:17PM +0000, Bob Pekarske wrote: > GREAT! But please don't leave your site the way it is now. My fellows in > industry CANNOT take it seriously, and we will not test it for you. My > management will simply say "I told you that was an unsupported OS. > Convert to a real system before 2000." Why won't you test it for us? FreeBSD is a volunteer-based project. If this issue is important to you, then you should be willing to invest the effort to address it. Asking other people to do this work (which is likely to be tedious and dull) is not likely to work very well. Another alternative would be to hire a consultant to audit the code for you. Money is a great incentive for people to do things that they're otherwise unlikely to do. Matthew -- Matthew Hunt * UNIX is a lever for the intellect. -J.R. Mashey http://www.pobox.com/~mph/pgp.key for PGP public key 0x67203349. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message