Les Mikesell wrote: > Johnny Hughes wrote: > >>>>> No. But we had that stuff rather regularly with samba - their first >>>>> line >>>>> of support seems to be : "Upgrade your version to the most current >>>>> one, >>>>> then ask again." >>>>> >>>>> That's what I meant. >>>>> >>>> That is very common with applications. They don't back patch old >>>> versions, and the problem you ask about might be already fixed. Just >>>> look at the dovecot list. People still pop in and ask why 0.99 has >>>> this problem, because that is what their distro came with, but they >>>> are currently at 1.0.5, and have 1.1 in beta. Who has the time to >>>> backport fixes to old versions if you don't get paid for it? >>> And what's the point even if you do get paid? The problem is really in >>> distributions that by policy won't do a version level app upgrade even >>> in instances where it would clearly be better than patching the beta >>> version they chose to include. >>> >> >> Well ... Even IF the dovecot people backported patches to 0.99 ... RHEL >> would probably not bring those patches in anyway, unless it fixed a >> problem that they have in the RH bugzilla. That is the whole purpose of >> freezing on the enterprise distribution. > > Why should dovecot people have anything more to do with a beta version > that they no longer support? It wasn't their choice for that version to > live on (nearly) forever. > I said EVEN IF THEY DID ... it would not make any difference. I did not say that they wanted to do so. ALTHOUGH, if they cared to be in 85% of the Enterprise Linux installs in the World, they WOULD support it, but that is another story. >> They fix security updates and bugs and you run it like it was released >> ... IT IS THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT. >> >> IF that isn't the distribution type you want ... CentOS is not the >> distribution for you :D > > So which distribution makes intelligent decisions about how to best > maintain each application package instead of applying a blanket policy > that obviously doesn't fit everything? I do, of course, want stability > in most of the packages - just not where a barely functional beta was > shipped in the first place. > Well, the decisions are made, that was what they picked ... it is done and not going to change. I would say the the people planning RHEL are fairly intelligent, as the own 85% market share in the PAID FOR Enterprise Linux world. And even Novell + SUSE + Microsoft (with a cold slap in the face from Oracle too) did not even put a SLIGHT dent into that. But, what do I know about these things.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
