[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 1,000 year backward compatability of tools

From: Bruce Korb
Subject: Re: 1,000 year backward compatability of tools
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:44:40 -0800

Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I guess it's time for me to chime in.
> Dave Mills expect NTP to compile on anything he can get his hands on.

That's very nice.  Why does he need to do this?  I mean, the
compelling reason?

> I've been lucky so far in that some of the older gear he has is breaking.  I
> do, however, still support SunOS4.1 and Ultrix.
> So as long as there is *some* way for me to deal with ancient hardware I'm
> happy.
> On another note, right around Y2K I had a client call when they "discovered"
> an old Pyramid box (an active mail server) hidden in a room.  They knew they
> couldn't turn it off and they knew it was never going to be Y2K compatible.
> I had *remarkable* time finding a way to find/compile something to handle
> their problem (I ended up with a simple TCP proxy that forwarded SMTP
> traffic to a new machine, and this software was simple enough that it could
> be compiled with the native compiler; I was unable to get any of my Old
> versions of gcc to build on that box.)

Including the 2.7.2?

I would think "compelling need" would mean:

1.  You can't get GCC 2.7.2 up (with a precompile or from source)
2.  You can't get an old bash up (likewise)
3.  You can't then do rolling upgrades till you're up-to-date
    enough to build the product you're interested in

If any of those are true, then "compelling need" is shown when:

4.  You have the time to spend on it.

It might be nice to set up an internet archive of installable
binaries for these things while you can still find the platforms
around at all.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]