challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3

[Paul Schmehl]

--On Thursday, June 05, 2008 08:03:44 +0200 Torfinn Ingolfsen 
<torfinn.ingolfsen at broadpark.no> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:19:03 -0700
> Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>
>> Edwin, I've been building testbed environments for over 20 years in
>> my professional career.  I know a lot more than this basic concept.
>>
>> The costs in our environment for a proper testbed is $20k in
>> hardware and 3000 man hours.  That's for a small test of comparable
>> small changes to the existing environment.
>>
>> Why would we take on this cost only to re-document well known and
>> already acknowledged bugs?  I mean, really?
>
> I'm surprised that a test environment (for upgrade testing, load
> testing, release testing) isn't already in place.
> Some people (customers and operators alike) might think it is
> unprofessional and unsafe to run a production system without a test
> system available.
>
> If you have a test system available, why don't you use it?

I am offended by the tone of many of the responses to Jo Rhett's *legitimate* 
arguments that *perhaps* the EOL of 6.2 is a bit premature.  I think some folks 
need to take a break, push away from the keyboard and reduce the insulting 
rhetoric they are casting his way.

He has been more than clear that he routinely donates time and equipment to the 
community.  If all you can do is insult him, perhaps you should consider 
shutting up.

Please note: this is *not* directed only at the person to whom I responded but 
to all those who have chosen to take the low road rather than engage Jo in 
professional discussion.

-- 
Paul Schmehl
As if it wasn't already obvious,
my opinions are my own and not
those of my employer.