From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 12:58:22 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 D08ED16A4C8; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:58:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from claco@summitracing.com) Received: from summitracing.com (summitproxy.summitracing.com [208.44.49.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCE243E92; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:57:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from claco@summitracing.com) Received: from exchange.summit.network [172.16.246.189] by summitracing.com with ESMTP (SMTPD-9.10) id ABB61078; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:57:26 -0400 Received: by exchange.summit.network with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:57:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4239A4FA4FF82E44AD6D215C41024B5C09601D01@exchange.summit.network> From: Chris Laco To: Dan Lukes , Garance A Drosihn Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:57:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Jason Stone , security-officer@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable , freebsd security 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 12:58:23 -0000 Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0... > Problem is performance and trust in stability. It's > money and hardware independent problem. > > 5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count > it as competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release > in 6.x tree. 6.0 has stability problem. The 6.1 is > sufficiently stable on average use, but it still has problems > in edge situations. The 6.2 become first RELEASE in 6.x tree > acceptable for serious production use. 6.3 will be candidate > for first trustable RELEASE if there will not be significant > problem with 6.2. It's nothing special on major version > changes - 3.0 has been buggy, 4.0 has been buggy, 5.0 has > been almost unusable. It's common for other systems also - > first usable release of Novell Netware in 3.x tree has been > 3.11 (after buggy 3.0 and 3.1), but stable release has been > 3.12 for example. Oddly enough, I've heard this very sentiment elsewhere this week. Take the post with a grain of salt, but it does touch on the matter. http://use.perl.org/~scrottie/journal/31273 >From my personal experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine, all on the same hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install than I ever did with my 4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to see if 6.0 will run on it. Just another $0.000000002. -=Chris