Correction for

2013-12-16 Thread Beeblebrox
The post below shows up at #7 in google search for freebsd pf version.
The title of the post is Do not use FreeBSD 9.0 as a PF firewall 

Probably a known issue, but it could be useful to demand a follow-up post
along the lines 9.2 is now the norm and sysutils/pftop is no longer
broken.

Failing that, lets set up a FreeBSD malicious sites page, where
deliberately misleading content or sites witch refuse to correct their
slander are listed and pushed on to search engines. Just as a newspaper must
retract erroneous news reports, Blogs are also obligated to publish
corrective measures taken by the companies or organizations which they have
accused.




-
FreeBSD-11-current_amd64_root-on-zfs_RadeonKMS
--
View this message in context: 
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Correction-for-tp5869061.html
Sent from the freebsd-advocacy mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: Correction for

2013-12-16 Thread Julian H. Stacey
Beeblebrox wrote:
 The post below shows up at #7 in google search for freebsd pf version.
 The title of the post is Do not use FreeBSD 9.0 as a PF firewall 

http://www.pantz.org/software/pf/do_not_use_freebsd_9.0_as_a_pf_firewall.html

Posted on 02-20-2012 02:59:21 UTC | Updated on 03-29-2012 02:35:09 UTC

Near 2 years old. Most readers of PD src OSs know a .0 release is
adventurous (though page author didnt mention that).  Most readers long
since would know to search for newer FreeBSDs, 
probably see 9.0 was dropped 2013-03-31, 8.5 month back.

  http://www.freebsd.org/security/unsupported.html


 Probably a known issue, but it could be useful to demand a follow-up post
 along the lines 9.2 is now the norm and sysutils/pftop is no longer
 broken.

Only Request not Demand, else you'll fail, annoy yourself  provoke strife.


 Failing that, lets set up a FreeBSD malicious sites page, where

No! It's just some guy who tried another UX,
who ran out of time before he learned all the differences.
Better not divert to create  maintain a growing set
of correctons to ever more ancient non freebsd.org blogs.


 deliberately misleading content or sites witch refuse to correct their
...which is a different word not a typo.

It is not obvious he deliberately got things wrong IMO,
(When I last tried Linux for interest, I'm sure I got things wrong).


 slander are listed and pushed on to search engines. Just as a newspaper must

Wrong law. Slander is spoken, Libel is written.


 retract erroneous news reports, Blogs are also obligated to publish
 corrective measures taken by the companies or organizations which they have
 accused.

Forget law :
  - Of near 200 sovereign global nations independent legal systems,
few might obligate web page corrections,  fewer enforce it,
 only then if You pay a lawyer.
  - If something is not a page claiming to be a maintained current
comparison, but merely a Blog (= b[.+]log ?) Log of experiences at Date,
(as that page does) I see no obligation to waste time updating it.
  - Don't Demand a fix, Offer author a friendly short update ready
to drop in, with href= to wherever your research with
http://www.freebsd.org/send-pr.html shows fixes were made.
  - Target MS for strife, not a BSD or a Linux.

Cheers,
Julian
-- 
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com
 Interleave replies below like a play script.  Indent old text with  .
 Send plain text, not quoted-printable, HTML, base64, or multipart/alternative.
___
freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org