Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:11:56 -0700 From: Shawn Webb <lattera@gmail.com> To: Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, freebsd-sysinstall@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Installer Roadmap Message-ID: <AANLkTik3sRNhu9YM68d5z8GYsrzPn8VWC11QSHNmHDSi@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <61079648-D76C-4699-AC4D-F6EBE64ABFFC@vicor.com> References: <4D35CFFB.3010302@freebsd.org> <4D5E945F.60106@freebsd.org> <61079648-D76C-4699-AC4D-F6EBE64ABFFC@vicor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There are many reasons for this, and none of them are selfish (although it > remains possible to drum-up some selfish reason, all of the reasons behind > our motivation are in-fact unselfish). Truth-be-told, I welcome the > replacement of sysinstall but am very wary that ANY replacement will be able > to exactly replicate the hardware compatibility that sysinstall currently > enjoys. I do indeed envision a great celebration as FreeBSD-9 bucks > sysinstall but also at the same time have nightmares of receiving waves of > calls from people having trouble (for example) "installing FreeBSD-9 on > their AMD K6 based system, circa long-long-ago in a universe far-far-away." > (yes, we do have data centers running that very equipment with uptime in the > 1,000's of days). > I'm sure I'm not fully aware of the situation at your data center, but would systems that have 1,000+ day uptimes be candidates for upgrade to FreeBSD 9? It seems that if a system has that kind of uptime, it's a high priority server and uptime needs to be maintained. Maybe it would be possible to have both sysinstall and bsdinstall on the same install medium? Thanks, Shawn Webb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTik3sRNhu9YM68d5z8GYsrzPn8VWC11QSHNmHDSi>