> I understand that you guys are having fun with this. If you think this > is actually an issue, though, it's probably a good idea to suggest an > FAQ change. "Generally reliable" is a pretty lukewarm review compared to > the current FAQ, which doesn't mention any downsides: > > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html > > However, some long-time project members find soft updates trustworthy: > > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142170287802566&w=2 > > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142174547612722&w=2 > > So a tempered warning would probably be best.
Whoa there. We do not get bug reports of enough quality to determine what the people running into these problems are doing. Maybe they are just shooting themselves in the foot? Maybe people are using pf or ssh incorrectly and shooting themselves in the foot? Should we change documentation to clarify * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. Come on Micheal. You could focus developer attention on improving software (which requires "power users" to file better bug reports). Instead, your comments here suggest developers change web pages. >From my perspective, what I see is very frustrating.
