From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 12:39:38 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 C295516A412; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:39:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3634743D49; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:39:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548D020C7; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:39:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: 0.0/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on tim.des.no Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3366320C6; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:39:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0CD27B85E; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:39:31 +0200 (CEST) From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Chris Laco References: <4239A4FA4FF82E44AD6D215C41024B5C09601D01@exchange.summit.network> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:39:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4239A4FA4FF82E44AD6D215C41024B5C09601D01@exchange.summit.network> (Chris Laco's message of "Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:57:16 -0400") Message-ID: <86odsgbda5.fsf@dwp.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Dan Lukes , Jason Stone , FreeBSD Stable , freebsd security , security-officer@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosihn 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: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:39:38 -0000 Chris Laco writes: > 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. The transition from 4.x to 5.x was very painful for a number of reasons (both technical and organisational) mainly having to do with trying to do too much at the same time. 6.x was a significant improvement in terms of stability and maturity, and hopefully 7.x will continue that trend. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no