Christensen Torben Bach writes:
>
> I did consider changing the standard IBM setup, but gave it up (David
> Thornley's reply explains excactly why - thank you, David).
> I'm no AIX expert and I want to sleep at night... so I went for a free port.
Rumor has it that there's a patch available from IBM to fix their
mistake.
> Personally I think that when a program *insists* on using a certain port it
> is as annoying as when a program insists on installing in a certain
> directory on your C:-drive!
I would agree with you except that there is no official registration
authority for directories on the C: drive, whereas there *is* an
official registration authority for TCP/IP port numbers. IBM has no
business using a port number in the registered range without registering
it, particularly not one that's already registered to someone else.
That said, I do support Derek's change to allow specifying the port
number in $CVSROOT, but I strongly encourage you to let IBM know you're
not happy with the situation. They need to understand that such
antisocial behavior is unacceptable.
-Larry Jones
My "C-" firmly establishes me on the cutting edge of the avant-garde.
-- Calvin
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
