From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 09:25:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C278216A47E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:25:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B875543D64 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:25:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 16486 invoked by uid 399); 12 Oct 2006 09:25:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Oct 2006 09:25:31 -0000 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:25:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Dan Lukes In-Reply-To: <452DF218.3090902@obluda.cz> Message-ID: <20061012021223.X521@qbhto.arg> 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> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 0xD5B2F0FB X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:25:36 -0000 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Dan Lukes wrote: > But, maybe for my poor knowledge of english, you misunderstand the > point of my think. Your English is quite good, actually. :) > 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. > > It has been serie of decisions of commiters and release team that > create current situation and all I say is, the resulting situation is not > good because we must drop product when worse replacement available only. I think saying that it's a worse replacement is a bit too broad. There are many cases where 6.x performs better than 4.x. However, to say that 6.x is always better would also be too broad (in addition to being demonstrably false). The key (as I stated in a previous mail) is for those that are seeing performance problems to jump in and help make it better. You are partially correct when you say that the developer community is only interested in more recent issues. I say partially because while in some cases it may be an "attention span" issue as you suggest, it's also due to the fact that as a project we've made an architectural decision to move forward along the path we're on. The "way of the future" is further down this road, not backing up to the 4.x days. Therefore, if 6.x is not working for you, for whatever reason, it's time to get in the game. > Despite of anything I sayd, we should thank for the whole team for > it's work. I'm sure anybody do all he can. Thanks! I don't think anyone would misinterpret your tone as harsh, or inappropriate. You've very effectively made your case for why you want support to continue. I hope that those who've responded have made their reasons equally clear for why that is not likely to happen. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection