From owner-freebsd-advocacy Wed May 19 16:23:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7F315164; Wed, 19 May 1999 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr04.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA05101; Wed, 19 May 1999 16:23:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr04.primenet.com(206.165.6.204) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd005007; Wed May 19 16:22:57 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA09945; Wed, 19 May 1999 16:22:53 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199905192322.QAA09945@usr04.primenet.com> Subject: Re: BSDI giving out old info? To: wes@softweyr.com (Wes Peters) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:22:53 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chris@calldei.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3741BE86.54C4512B@softweyr.com> from "Wes Peters" at May 18, 99 01:24:54 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > The COM and DCOM books describe it in sufficient detail that it can > > be implemented. The one caveat is that EGCS vtable support sucks. > > Another caveat is that ActiveX is a giant can of bugs waiting to be released. > Do we really WANT to advertise support for ActiveX? I thought not. Actually, there are a large number of ActiveX modules that run on both Windows platforms and x86 Solaris. The IE version for x86 Solaris depends upon it. > > These are supported via the WIDE/INRIA/LANL code, though the WIDE stuff > > appears more mature. FreeBSD is not, however, shipping it. > > 3rd party? Installation's a bitch... unless you have 2.2.8. > You seem to assume other vendors have *working* SNMP implementations also. > I can testify from first-hand experience that this is only sort of true. > Working == works great if you use OUR management application to manage > OUR switches/servers/hosts. I'm saying that if you're going to correct them in public, then you need to meet some definition of "works". > > > > IPv6 It was developed on FreeBSD! Yes > > > > > > I wonder why they put N/A, then. > > > > FreeBSD is not shipping it, and it is not a package. > > 3rd party then, right? Same versioning problems as the VPN (IPSEC) stuff: ot for -current, not for 3.2-RELEASE. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message