On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM, L. V. Lammert <l...@omnitec.net> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Philip Guenther wrote: > > <snip the BS> >> > There is no way of knowing if it would have found the problem, so why > continue with this drivel? Contrary to the lengthy diatribes here trying > to distract from the original problem an solution: > > 1) The problem with locate was traced to a bunch of session files; > 2) The problem was fixed by cleaning them the hard way. > > There is no way to know if an upgrade would have fixed the problem, as > upgrading is/was/would be just a distraction; it is not good practice to > try and obscure the problem, and I do not understand why some people here > like to expouse such practices. > > Sure, there is no support for 4.3, but, then I did not ASK for support on > 4.3 (to read the OP). Don't bother to try and dixtract from the original > problem - it juse makes it harder for those LOOKING for the problem and > solution to find it in all the noise.
As someone who's faced this kind of thing from both sides, I think you're going to have a long term problem with the "just help me fix the system I have, don't bother with telling me to upgrade" approach. Too many bugs are fixed as part of re-engineering or feature addition, and expecting even the authors, whom you are not paying for contracted work, to maintain the old releases becomes futile pretty quickly. It's difficult for them to maintain the old environments as test beds, or to dredge back that far into memory of how things used to be done. I've been running into this for decades, all the way back to the shift from BSD 4.2 to BSD 4.3. (Note that that is not OpenBSD, it's BSD.) The yelling and namecalling is unfortunate. But from observation and professional experience, if you want professional grade support for a software livecycle of over 3 years, you should be willing to pay for it.
