Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:27:56 +0200 From: jere <jere@htnet.hr> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-05:21.openssl Message-ID: <434E0C7C.5060408@htnet.hr> In-Reply-To: <434D1A21.9040104@fer.hr> References: <200510111202.j9BC2obf081876@freefall.freebsd.org> <434CBDC2.407 0405@open-networks.net><434CE0F1.6090400@htnet.hr><20051012134440.GA17517@d roopy.unibe.ch> <434D1A21.9040104@fer.hr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I agree with that. What enterprise environment wants is quick patching and a quick rollback (in case of failure). Nobody asks you how good is or how much you like your OS - system just has to work - that's all. FreeBSD itself *is* very robust OS but not having this properties it is still limited to be widely accepted in large production environments. j. Ivan Voras wrote: > Tobias Roth wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:09:53PM +0200, jere wrote: > >> And you cannot expect the port maintainers >> to backport security fixes if the upstream provider chose to release the >> fix only together with a new version. > > Yes you can, ask these guys: http://www.debian.org/. It's just a matter > of policy. > > I dislike the long cycles between version updates in Debian but must > admit that the "stable" distributions indeed justify their name, > INCLUDING packages. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?434E0C7C.5060408>