Quoting Jo Rhett, who wrote on Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:25:27PM -0700 .. > On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Robert Watson wrote: > > An important factor is whether or not we consider the release a > > highly maintainable release, and while we have intuitions at the > > time of release, that's something we can only learn in the first > > couple of months after it's in production. I don't know of any COTS > > software house that really does it any differently > > I understand what you mean, but the statement is blatantly false as > stated. Anyone selling software to the US Government *must* specify > (or meet, depending) a minimum support period, and must also specify a > cost the agency can pay to extend the support period. > > Not relevant to FreeBSD -- just qualifying the statement as it > stands. For the obvious comparison, Solaris versions have well- > published release and support periods, usually upwards of 8 years. > Obviously they have more resources to do this, I'm just pointing out > that the statement you made is incorrect as stated. > > > and I'm not sure you could do it differently -- no one plans to ship > > a lemon, but once in a while you discover that things don't go as > > planned. > > > I am amazed at the preposterously large elephant in the room that none > of you are willing to address. Watching each of you dance around it > would be terribly funny if it didn't affect my job so badly. (and if > I wasn't going to have to bail on FreeBSD and go to some crap form of > Linux because the FreeBSD developers appear to be unwilling to > consider the idea of getting more help)
You seem to be *demanding* quite a lot lately. Wilko _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
