:). I believe you. One of the things I have come to hate the most about Microsoft is 'supposed' backwards compatibility. Microsoft uses the same logic. Their new OS, technology, or whatever is truly better than the old one.
One of the things I've liked most about most OS projects in general is the backwards compatibility or at least feeble attempts to somewhat support old installations. Not everyone can dump the latest and greatest (even if it is rock solid) on their machines. I realize this doesn't exactly cover this problem as it's a problem caused by dumping the latest and greatest on the server, but then having problems connecting to it with the only 'official' (but an old) client. But what about the situation where people have to maintain (even for a short-time) both installations. Don't get me wrong, I understand... It's a 'tough' decision to make, especially in the OS situation where there often aren't enough workers for everything that needs done in the first place. And it's not my decision to make in the first place. Wrong or right. It seems a lot like the folks with the 'old' client where hung out to dry, and left there with nothing else. Heck I've even tried switching to WinNessusWX like advised, but then I run into the problem that I can connect to a new server, but I can't connect to the old server and I'm back to going 'clear text' or ssl tunnelling. Anyways... I appreciate your response. I mainly asked to just ask. George On 24 Apr 2002 at 20:21, Michel Arboi wrote: > > P.S. How hard would it be to 'resurect' this client to handle both > > PEKS and SSL (1.0.x, 1.1.x/1.2.x) style connections? > > _That_ hard. > You could probably develop a client that could connect to 1.0 and 1.2 > servers, but why not upgrade everything to 1.2?
