On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Jeremy Visser <jeremy@visser.name> wrote:
On 16/07/2012, at 5:44 PM, Tony Langdon wrote:
However, as you say, it's not a production quality stack, though it does work fine for everyday end user purposes (I've used it extensively).
The level of Windows ignorance on this list is quite incredible. Lack of knowledge is excusable (this is a Linux list, after all) — simply making up facts, however, is not. Microsoft has considered IPv6 in Windows XP to be production quality since XP Service Pack 1:
Why is the opinion of MS worth more than Tony's opinion in this discussion? Presumably people like Tony have tried things out and have their own reasons for determining what is "production quality".
Granted, there is no GUI to configure IPv6 on Windows XP.
On an OS where it's expected that everything can be configured via a GUI that alone could be an adequate reason for describing something as not being "production quality". Of course you can't really define "production quality" anyway, see the previous discussions about BTRFS and ZFS for examples. So claims about software being not of production quality which aren't followed by specific examples of failures are statements of opinion which can't be disproved. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/