Wine/Cedega and fedora 3

[Sean Middleditch]

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 11:57 -0500, Richard June wrote:
> [snip]
> > No.  I don't want to do it because I lose any security updates from any
> > vendor.  I would become the package vendor, and as a result, I'd become
> > responsible for packaging security updates.  My point was that there are
> > people who package newer versions of OpenSSH *and* provide security
> > updates, but I haven't been able to use any of those packages on RHEL
> > 2.1.
> Uhm, updating OpenSSH doesn't mean you lose *all* updates from *any* vendor. 

Sorry, I meant to say that I lose any updates available from any of the
OpenSSH vendors, of which there are several I could choose from.

> > It's goofy.  It's a waste of effort.  Someone *already* packages new
> > versions of OpenSSH, why should someone else have to *repackage* the
> > exact same binary just to get a different set of RPM headers?  How does
> > that make sense?
> It's not really *goofy*  RHEL 2.1 is not the same as RHEL 3.0, you don't 
> expect software built against Windows XP to flawlessly work with windows  98. 

Yes, actually, I do.  And I'm rarely disappointed.  I really can't
remember the last major conflict I've seen with a Windows app that
wasn't fixable with minor configuration tweaks... we have a couple
proprietary apps here for tax management that aren't even developed
anymore, were originally installed on Win98 machines, and which still
run fine after upgrading to WinXP and then SP2.

Most commercial games are developed on 2000 or XP and yet still support
98.  Windows does not generally break compatibility and does not
generally have magic compilations environments where the exact same
source can end up with wildly different binary requirements and
interfaces depending on where and when it was compiled.  I don't expect
Linux to be at that level of interface stability at this moment, but I
do expect to at least be slowly moving towards it, eventually.

Which is what this whole thread is about.  Things that can be improved
that have absolutely no negative impact on how Linux works now for any
users while potentially improving things for other users.  Better
packaging isn't going to hurt anyone, but it will help.  I haven't yet
seen so much as a single argument against my original suggestion - not
one.

> > If the OpenSSH issue were really that important, I wouldn't have many
> > other choices, would I?  Thankfully most of the stuff I run into are
> > things that, after wasting insane amounts of time on, I can fix myself
> > (I'm sure you're happy to know your tax money goes towards me having to
> > duplicate work already done by hundreds to thousands of other
> > administrators around the world) or I can just live without.  In the
> > OpenSSH case, I don't *need* gssapi-with-mic, it just simplifies a lot
> > of what I do, especially when I have long ssh->ssh->ssh chains going
> > through several firewalls.
> Well, if your email address is indicative of where you work, you shouldn't be 
> getting *any* of my tax money period. And you probably shouldn't get any of 

No, the mail address I use for mailing lists is my personal address.
Keeps things simpler.  ^_^

> it anyway. But if my tax money does go to you doing work, then I have a right 
> to expect to benefit from it. So you need to post and share all the work you 
> have done.

Despite common belief, computers do a lot of work besides just generate
software.  ~_^  My work benefits our residents.  Some of it directly,
some indirectly by improving productivity in our offices.  We also do
release any patches we write back upstream - most of the GNOME and
Debian stuff I've done, for example.  Definitely one of the advantages
of working here, even with the crappy pay.  ;-)
-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.