MailScanner version 4.65.3 andperl-MailTools-2.02-1.el4.rf HOWTO

[Gerard]

On Sunday December 09, 2007 at 07:38:48 (AM) Randal, Phil wrote:

> Half the problem is perl module authors who don't give a damn about
> backwards-compatibility.

I think that is being a bit harsh. In many cases maintaining 100% backwards
compatibility is not feasible. This becomes rapidly apparent when an update
deals with a security problem for instance. Most authors make allowances for
end users when possible; however, that is not always possible. Software
development is an on gong process. To expect it to simply sit idle while
end users catch up is ridiculous.

A software developer makes a choice as to how he develops his product. An end
user has a choice as to whether or not he/she wishes to use said product. If
the end user declines to make his/her system compatible with the product they
are trying to utilize, then they have in fact made a conscious decision to not
use said product.

If no users could maintain a system that was compatible with the authors
product, then a case could be make that the software author's requirements
were not reasonable. However; when the actual number of end users who are
affected  is minute, and mostly of their own conscious decision, blaming a
software author is ludicrous.

By the way, I was not aware that 'perl module authors' were being reimbursed
for their efforts. Since they apparently are doing on their own dime, they can
pretty much do as they wish with their product. No one is excluded from
writing their own module and having it included in the Perl offerings.

Just my own 2¢.


-- 
Gerard