[34394] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Sun Feb 4 09:15:13 2001
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 22:13:02 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010204221302.O517@ewok.creative.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010203191614.A528@superbox.meltzer.org>; from meltzer@villageworld.com on Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 07:16:14PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001, Jeffrey Meltzer wrote:
>
> > > And, since they're commercial organizations using BIND in a commercial
> > > aspect, I think they can cough up the money.
>
> That's precisely the point. Even if they wanted to, ISC is saying they
> can't. They're choosing who they think are important, or "critical".
>
> I'm curious as to why ISC considers Sun, HP, etc more important to get the
> information to Worldcom, Cable & Wireless, etc.
>
> Is it because Sun, etc pay ISC licensing fees to distribute the software?
How many of you use BIND in a commercial environment?
How many of you actually contribute money back to the authors of BIND?
Its all fine and good saying "When there's a security problem in BIND,
I want to know and I want to know now!" but guys, if you want this wonderful
level of support, either cough up some money to your software providers,
or write it yourself. I might not agree with how Paul is going about it,
but I understand his problems.
2c,
Adrian
--
Adrian Chadd "Romance novel?"
<adrian@creative.net.au> "Girl Porn."
- http://www.sinfest.net/d/20010202.html
