Imminent release of 2.2.5 and 3.0.3

[Matt Zagrabelny]

Well said, Phil. Thanks for clearing it up. ;)

-m

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 18/04/2014 21:30, Stefan Paetow wrote:
>
>> Ouch!
>
>
> You have misinterpreted the essence and scope of my complaint.
>
> I've got no problem with people who run LTS distros and vendor packages - we
> do that. It's extremely common, and I think it's a very sensible default,
> and that the LTS distros provide, in the main, a good service.
>
> I've got no (big) problem with people who mandate vendor packages entirely.
> I think the legit reasons for that are very few, and I think a lot of the
> time it's done for wrong reasons - "because ITIL" or "because PCI" - but
> regardless of what *I* think, that is a choice people are entitled to make
> themselves.
>
> (I will say that if "stability" is an argument, then you MUST presumably
> have local testing and signoff procedures. If so, it's unclear to me why
> those can't be used to Q&A a local rebuild, but I'm prepared to accept there
> are reasons. Like I said, local choice)
>
> The problem I have is people coming for free help, then rejecting the
> answers they get because they want to keep the old version that they are
> PAYING for support on. That is impolite and, arguably more important, it
> allows unfriendly vendors to free-ride and hides information from friendly
> vendors about customer priorities.
>
> Asking for help intially is fine, and asking for help building a new version
> is fine. If you can't or won't build a new version, the right thing to do is
> thank the free support for their time, then indicate you'll push your vendor
> to do what they're being paid to do.
>
> Hope this is clear.
>
> Regards,
> Phil
> -
> List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See
> http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html