Re: No Distribution is 2.0.0 Current
Terry Dawson (terry@perf.no.itg.telecom.com.au)
Tue, 25 Jun 1996 16:09:41 +1000
Hubert A. Bahr wrote:
>
> Actually I feel that all programs should be updated periodically. At
> least every major revision. I am not talking 1.2, 1.4, plus patch
> levels. but 1.0.x 2.0.x 3.0.x. I am not saying programs will not work
> and an individual user doesn't need to do it but the user should not
> expect help to fix things if they are not reasonably current. To the
> major revision. If your programs are compiled against so many kernels
> you must have a.out versions. Why would you want both for other than a
> transition period. I frankly feel configuration management is extremely
> inmportant and no you don't change for the sake of change but you don't
> exhaborate a situation by having an untrackable system. Revising the
> baseline periodically(in this case about 2.5 year period) makes the job
> alot easier.
> Commercial products force this more often.
Hubert,
Why then don't you pitch in an volunteer to assist the distribution of
your choice on the matter if you feel so stronly about it ?
I'm sure they would all welcome extra assistance.
Terry