Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:08:13 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org, current <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006) Message-ID: <20051223030813.GD63497@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <20051222210904.GH39174@svcolo.com> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <20051217220021.GB93998@svcolo.com> <20051218023725.GM63497@over-yonder.net> <20051222210904.GH39174@svcolo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:09:04PM -0800 I heard the voice of Jo Rhett, and lo! it spake thus: > > No, you're missing the point. More core OS upgrades means less > incremental patches (which are easier to apply than a full update). Right. I don't understand how B follows A here. These patches come from where? Security advisories, mailing list discussions, and eating too much beef right before bed and waking up at 2am with brilliant ideas? Why would there be less of them, just because RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE tags are laid down more often? > Huh? That's backwards. If we can't schedule the downtime for a > full operating system upgrade (which takes far longer than it > should) then the system won't get upgraded. Having done full OS upgrades a number of times, I can't remember the last time it took more than 5 or 10 minutes (during most of which the system can keep running its normal services, just a little more crunched on CPU or I/O). Well, OK, I can; it was when I moved servers from 2.2.x to 4.x. But that's a rather exceptional case, and next time THAT happens, I'm darn well using it as an excuse to strongarm new hardware out of somebody and replace the server at the same time... > Not to be rude, but I think your definition of analogy is wrong. No, you're right. "Hyperbole" was probably a better word, but even that doesn't quite fit. My ability to find the right word is flaky at times. I don't understand the basis of your assertion that more common tagging means suddenly you can't apply individual patches. > Back to the point, the comments aren't "bad". Your idea that binary > operating system upgrades from ISO are "easier" demonstrates that > you're talking about home computers, not production servers. Oh, no. Heck, I find that upgrades from SOURCE are "easier". In fact, just last month I bought my first CD burner, so it wasn't until a few weeks ago that I even burned my first ISO (and that, just to test the burner and figure out how to do it), and I've never booted or installed off one. For small groups of servers, I NFS mount installworlds, and for larger groups, I rdist out binaries. But it always comes from source. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051223030813.GD63497>