Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:03:19 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Message-ID: <l03010904aecbef073392@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <199612050304.UAA13560@rocky.mt.sri.com> References: <l03010903aecbe7b57b06@[208.2.87.4]> <l03010901aecbd9af2f53@[208.2.87.4]> <199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> <nate@mt.sri.com> <199612050121.SAA12964@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612050221.TAA13306@rocky.mt.sri.com> <l03010903aecbe7b57b06@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Shut up and get outta my way, since all you are doing is *hindering* the >process of making things better. > >You *ARE* part of the problem, and not the solution. Yes, I am a problem because I am not satisfied with the posturing that you make in your own little sandbox. If you want your system to be taken seriously, you need to recognize that there is more to a system that just the code. I happen to think that a major problem in acceptance is (perceived) (lack of) "customer support". Jordan has made great progress in making installation more "user friendly". We also need to make sure that we address other needs of the "users". Particularly if the intention is to target the commercial user rather than the home hobbyist, you must remember that they need STABLE, SUPPORTED systems. What you call a "release" has, by industry standards, had virtually no testing. It needs to be field tested for some time before being placed into critical service. In the interim, the users STILL need a SUPPORTED system. >ps. Apologies to those folks who think I'm being a bit harsh. I've just >had it with Richard's 'pie-in-the-sky' solutions that never materialize >that awlays seem to involve more of my time and none of his. On the contrary, I proposed that this effort involve participants other than the "developers". However, it is your wish to restrict the "FreeBSD organization" to your closed group which places the burden on yourselves. You (conveniently) forget that just a few messages back, I offered to do the additional testing to assure that the changes going into 2.2 were also appropriate for 2.1. I am both willing and able to support the source tree for 2.1 separate from the main cvs tree. However, I do not think that is really a good idea. If FreeBSD is to gain from any effort to support the reliable aging system, it MUST be done under the banner of the organization. If that is done, I feel it only prudent that the master copy of things be kept by the organization in a unified manner. And you have now convinced me that, WRT the build system, your offer to consider a "proof of concept" rather than the full thing was insincere and any effort that I have made toward developing that demonstration has been wasted effort. :-(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010904aecbef073392>