Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 21:28:50 -0400 From: Mike Hernandez <sequethin@gmail.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: End of Life is Meaningless Message-ID: <1241486930.10923.13.camel@Euterpe> In-Reply-To: <49FF8F2E.60800@highperformance.net> References: <49FF8F2E.60800@highperformance.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 17:58 -0700, Jason C. Wells wrote: > That should be read as "End of Life" is meaningless. Not end of "Life > is Meaningless." Life is still meaningless, as is this post if you > disagree. > > It mystifies me that there is this recent tendency for people to get > concerned about EOL. "What do I do?" My answer, "Do nothing." Just > because a FreeBSD version is EOL doesn't mean you have to stop using > it. It doesn't mean that your particular version is suddenly prone to > downtime. It doesn't mean you can't install patches even though the > secteam won't be updating CVS. It doesn't mean you can't continue to > develop applications for a major version. > > EOL is a tool for FreeBSD to manage its own house. It is in no way a > directive on how you should manage your house. Queue someone still > running 2.1.5 with uptime stats. Come on. You know you want to show off. > > To the people who have to manage limited resources and must therefore > implement an EOL policy. I commend you on the balancing act. Good on ya > mates. Your doing a fine job. > I understand that some systems can't afford downtime for an upgrade, but why not upgrade? A few minutes of uptime to take advantage of the hard work that the developers poured into making another release can't be a bad thing can it? I agree that there's certainly no need to panic, but in situations where a little downtime is acceptable I wouldn't opt to stay with the old system. Just my .02 :) --Mike H
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1241486930.10923.13.camel>