From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 10:36:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F7416A407; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:36:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Received: from smtp2.ms.mff.cuni.cz (sns.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.77]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189EF43D8F; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:36:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Received: from [195.113.19.244] (dan.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.19.244]) by smtp2.ms.mff.cuni.cz (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9CAaWAM007235; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:36:33 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Message-ID: <452E1BB0.7090607@obluda.cz> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:40:48 +0200 From: Dan Lukes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060919 SeaMonkey/1.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <451F6E8E.8020301@freebsd.org> <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20061011083021.C2780@treehorn.dfmm.org> <452D7351.6050804@obluda.cz> <452DF218.3090902@obluda.cz> <20061012021223.X521@qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20061012021223.X521@qbhto.arg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd security , security-officer@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosihn , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:36:42 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: >> The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for >> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I speaked about >> performance in some situation and believe in it's stability. > I think saying that it's a worse replacement is a bit too broad. With no doubt. > You are > partially correct when you say that the developer community is only > interested in more recent issues. It's based on number of PR's I has opened/unanalyzed. My PR's are mostly focused on not so critical problem in ancients part of code. I know standard mantra, of course - no volunteer must analyze my (or anybody's) PRs, there is no doubt about it ... > Therefore, if 6.x is not > working for you, for whatever reason, it's time to get in the game. I'm already in ;-) I'm using 6-STABLE (and 5-STABLE previously) on some unimportant computers and I'm reposting observered problems (mostly with offer of patch). I'm hesitating to install 6.x tree releases on critical routers mainly as they are on the performance top already (with modern hardware, not an old crap) ... Well, nothing more to speak. Have a nice day. Dan