On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 01:07:33PM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> In this case, someone from this list would no doubt also come up with a
> patch. So who would you rather have fix it, redhat or someone like one
> of the Russes, Sam, Fred, ... ?
Sure, the best of both worlds would be to have someone everyone
trusted able to patch it. If that happened, why wouldn't a vendor use
it? After all, it cuts their time commitment down to doing QA, which
they'd have to do anyway. You're forgetting that there are some
obscure OS' out there that not everyone has access to. Would you
trust a patch done by someone who didn't use the OS? I don't think
anyone would write said patch, but hey... Or one that wasn't at least
based on the feedback of the vendor is the only entity with enough
knowledge of the system to properly design the work-around?
Note: I don't think this is possible. I think the way qmail is
designed precludes this if an OS isn't really, really broken
(i.e. shouldn't by any means be a server of any kind). I could be
wrong.
You're forgetting (or missing the point I and others have made) that
an OEM/vendor can't distribute a patched qmail binary. They can't
distribute it if they patch it themselves, and unless the license
terms are modified neither can anyone else.
It's a moot question.
-Peter
