Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:04:28 PST From: Michael Ryan <mike@NetworX.ie> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Y2K Message-ID: <ECS9811251028B@NetworX.ie>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:42:18 +0100 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Well, lets just say that I disagree a lot with you. The difference > clearly originating from the fact that you are getting paid whereas > I use my spare time. Look, Poul-Henning, I don't wish to get into a flame with you; my original question was a simple question phrased in a pleasant non-demanding manner: does the FreeBSD Project have Y2K compliance status information for particular releases, as there is no release-specific details on the web site. It appears you have become upset by my use of one word: entitled. To me, this is over-reacting. I take exception to your 2nd sentence above. If you remember the thrust of my previous mails, you'll remember that my very concern is that this does -not- cost my customer money. Put very plainly, I am engaging in this present exchange in the hope that I do -not- end up making money out of it. I get annoyed by people who assume that just because somebody makes a living out of what they like doing that, all of a sudden, making money is what drives them. If the difference between us was "clearly ... that you are getting paid", then I would have told my customer that he does need to upgrade and wouldn't have bothered sending my original, friendly query in the 1st place. > First of, you should notice that 2.2.5R will be at least five > releases and 25 months old by the time we get to 31121999. We > already have three relases out (2.2.6, 2.2.7 & 3.0) with 2.2.8 > scheduled and 3.0.1 sort of scheduled (jan 99), so we might even > manage to make it seven or eight releases old before the big party. This is totally irrevelant. I'm asking about a particular release -today-, not in 13 months time. > Second, we have released as comprehensive information as we have, > which, in my own dead-pan interpretation, says: > > "UNIX doesn't care about y2k in general, but a few programs > have to take humanized dates as I/O, and they could have > a few soft spots, although what we have found is minimal, > but we'll continue to look". Thank you very much. This gives me a level of confidence that 2.2.5R won't fall over. > > Third, you have the source. If you can imagine any soft spots, > why don't you go look? That is the main difference from a bin-only > UNIX where you have to rely on the vendor to tell you what's under > the hood, you can go look for your self! You can even install > a test machine and try it out for yourself, there are no licenses > which restrict your freedom in any respect. I agree entirely with you, but see my comment to your 1st point. > Fourth, if you had paid for a service contract, or even for the > product you use in the first place, I could understand some of your > reasoning, in particular if the source was not availble to you, > but considering the circumstances, I find > your demands completely unreasonable I have made no demands -- chill out, will you? > your arguments inflated and pompous Pompous! Not only am I insulted, I'm intrigued; please explain. > and your reason in doubt. Again, I infer you're assuming that I'm money-driven. Stand back and try to look at my mailings objectively and sensibly. If you have real doubt in my reason, then what am I really after; I'm listening... Bye, Mike mike@NetworX.ie www.NetworX.ie --- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ECS9811251028B>