Thom May wrote:
>
> At some point around Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:28:13PM +1000, Michael Fox said:
> > No offence but I agree with article. I have felt very let down, as since the
> > wonderful potato has come, they have left slink high and dry. I have 1 slink
> > box, and currently it is in a poor state. Mainly due to the lack of support
> > on the mirror ftp's that carry slink package tree. It has got to the point,
> > that next week, I have scheduled to be onsite to rebuild the machine onto
> > Debian 2.2, as I dare not run the upgrade. I'd sooner rebuild it and be sure
> > it will work for months on end.
> Why dare not run the upgrade? Have I missed something? So,
> they've stopped releasing bug fixes etc. This is entirely normal
> for an older release - it went stable fricking ages ago... I
> sent three machines on the slink-potato trip last week, and they
> are all perfectly happy. I'll even admit to doing one remotely,
> cos I really dislike the client <g>
> >
> > If and when woody does become the offical release, and if potato then
> > becomes how can I say, lacking in maintance. I am sure I will be moving any
> > such machines I admin, and future machines over to something else. I'd dare
> > say, a BSD OS of sorts. Either FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
> Why? Give reasons! All you are doing here is FUDing on a
> Microsoftian level because they aren't releasing Security Fixes,
> for a release that was superceded two months ago,
> in the entirely reasonable expectation that you will upgrade,
> *for free* to the new release!
Actually Debian will be releasing security fixes for Slink for a while
longer, due to popular demand. However, Debian will ultimately stop
supporting Slink, which is entirely reasonable. Does Red Hat continue
updating old versions of their software years after they are released?
No.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
