On Wednesday 29 October 2003 02:30 am, Joshua Levitsky wrote: > If Apple is responsible then we should see 10.2 patches backported. I think > it's reasonable that 10.3 patches come, and then 10.2 patches, and Apple > should have some Life Cycle policy to say if everything before 10.2 is EOL > or not. It's all a new world with Apple. Let us hope that they do not let > us down. As I mentioned to Thor in my previous e-mail (and got rejected by list admin because he thought I missed exactly that point), we should expect Apple patching 10.2 as well, because it still hasn't reached its EOL. I don't think Apple wouldn't release a patch for 10.2 but instead tell their customers to upgrade to 10.3. Such step is something that even Microsoft would fear of doing. It means simply rejecting huge userbase, essentially telling them to upgrade or be damned. No one with sane mind would do that, for it would lead to migrating to other platforms, and there's nothing on the server side that Mac OS X can give and Linux or BSD can't (expect the price and some other restrictions). But, as you said, Apple is still new in this U*x business (but Steve isn't! Remember NeXT!), but I'm sure they'll follow the business line of everyone else. Their user base is too precious to them to be lost because of arrogance. -- Radoslav Dejanović, founder and director Operacijski sustavi d.o.o. http://www.opsus.hr
