Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:44:48 +0000 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Less messages to FreeBSD.org lists Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040126183938.046fcec0@imap.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <40152488.8070309@iconoplex.co.uk> References: <4013EA9D.6040808@cream.org> <20040125134151.M52260@mail.tacorp.net> <20040125185753.GA12995@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <40141B3D.9070901@cream.org> <20040125194721.GA28036@xor.obsecurity.org> <40143CC3.6010709@cream.org> <401514D3.7020808@iconoplex.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040126133123.0465b398@imap.sfu.ca> <40152488.8070309@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 14:30 26/01/2004, Paul Robinson wrote: >Colin Percival wrote: >> I'd say that a more useful option would be to add code which >>"pings" a server every day with a request for binary security >>updates. > >Oooh.... now we're heading into the realms of Windows Update, and >we know how badly that can behave at times. Yes and no. Windows Update can behave badly. But I'm not talking about Windows Update; I'm talking about FreeBSD Update, which is very well behaved (and *much* faster, for that matter). Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.1.1.1.20040126183938.046fcec0>