[34364] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Rhett)
Sat Feb 3 21:25:30 2001
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 16:43:47 -0800
From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@isite.net>
To: Jeffrey Meltzer <meltzer@villageworld.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010203164347.E6636@isite.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Jeffrey Meltzer <meltzer@villageworld.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SO4.4.00.10102031438390.11207-100000@www.icsnet.com>; from meltzer@villageworld.com on Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 02:39:55PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I'm confused. I get the TLD server operators part. But you're saying
> that you'd only give OS vendors access to this information. How long does
> it take, say, Sun, to issue a patch update? Wouldn't it be much more
> efficient, and useful, to issue the information directly to the people
> using the software? How many people actually use the default vendor
> binaries anyways?
Just about every very large company that I've ever worked with. Also,
having spent numerous years working the NAVSEA and other Pentagon systems,
you are explicitly not permitted to install anything other than a
vendor-provided patch.
My god, are there really this many idiots out there that don't grasp how
the world works?
--
Joe Rhett Chief Technology Officer
JRhett@ISite.Net ISite Services, Inc.
PGP keys and contact information: http://www.noc.isite.net/Staff/
