-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Unruh wrote:

>
> That is not the problem. Millions still user Windows 95.
> The problem is that the security updates have never been applied and do not
> exist. Ie, that machine is wide open to attacks.
> So my conclusion is the same-- get a newer version!

RH7.3 has security updates :

http://www.fedoralegacy.org/updates/RH7.3/


- --
Un saludo
Alo [alo(@)uk2.net]
PGP en http://pgp.eteo.mondragon.edu [Get "0xF6695A61 "]
Usuario registrado Linux #276144 [http://counter.li.org]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEWZiYvzPPcPZpWmERAtpXAKC31cLZcO1FaNitxHj6tE 5CkpDijACffOPR
lxzdQGtko07Ney9NeqqFLVw=
=aORS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Alo wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Unruh wrote:
>
>> That is not the problem. Millions still user Windows 95.
>> The problem is that the security updates have never been applied and do not
>> exist. Ie, that machine is wide open to attacks.
>> So my conclusion is the same-- get a newer version!
>
> RH7.3 has security updates :
>
> http://www.fedoralegacy.org/updates/RH7.3/

Amazing! I had no idea they went back this far. I can avoid updating my
old machines for another decade ;-)

Thanks for the info, I thought they were FCn only.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Alo wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Unruh wrote:
>>
>>> That is not the problem. Millions still user Windows 95.
>>> The problem is that the security updates have never been applied
>>> and do not exist. Ie, that machine is wide open to attacks.
>>> So my conclusion is the same-- get a newer version!
>>
>> RH7.3 has security updates :
>>
>> http://www.fedoralegacy.org/updates/RH7.3/
>
> Amazing! I had no idea they went back this far. I can avoid updating
> my old machines for another decade ;-)
>
> Thanks for the info, I thought they were FCn only.

Those legacy releases are *unsupported*. And they should be left to die!
There are enough old bugs and since-discovered security issues that are
fundamental to old services, like older versions of OpenSSH or Apache, that
it's really not worth spending the time to backport the fixes and drivers
and do testing of them, etc., etc., etc.

Obviously some folks disagree with me, so you get unoffocial sites like
fedoralegacy.org, whom I admit that I find quite useful when helping other
folks keep legacy software running.