I would suggest you direct your complaints to the creators of pine in
this case. Most distros are released under the GNU license, and
their proprietary licensing makes this not possible.
Also it is a big liability to the distribution to release
applications that they have no control over, picture this scenerio
for a moment if you will; a buffer overflow exploit is found in pine
that gives root privileges. How does the distro respond to this?
Does it email it's entire userbase and advise them that a program
that was supplied to them through their distribution is now unsafe
and they are unable to do anything about it, and that until the
vendor manages to put out a patch for it they should uninstall it?
I suspect these are the exact reason that it is not included as it is
a large liability. You are venting your frustrations on the wrong
parties here. Talk to the creators of pine to release in an approved
license and you will probably see it get picked back up by the distros.
Until that point if you want that sort of software you'll have to get
used to downloading it from other sources and/or possible compiling
it yourself.
All of your arguments are for naught, this thread is a waste of
bandwidth.
Mark
On 28-Aug-05, at 9:48 AM, Eric Dunbar wrote:
To fail to explicitly include pine and support it is a distro doing a
*disservice* to the distro's users. I have yet to see a distro include
an acceptable alternative and it's not exactly the easiest piece of
software to install for people who aren't familiar with the inner
workings of yum or apt-get or...
_______________________________________________
yellowdog-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general
HINT: to Google archives, try '<keywords> site:terrasoftsolutions.com'
