From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 17:04:56 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 8219B16A4A7; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:04:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brett@lariat.net) Received: from lariat.net (lariat.net [65.122.236.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF2C43D45; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:04:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.net) Received: from anne-o1dpaayth1.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.net@lariat.net [65.122.236.2]) by lariat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08076; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:04:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200610131704.LAA08076@lariat.net> X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:28:41 -0600 To: Dan Lukes , Mark Linimon From: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: <452D1033.8050003@obluda.cz> References: <451F6E8E.8020301@freebsd.org> <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061011114110.GA23653@soaustin.net> <452D1033.8050003@obluda.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:24:11 +0000 Cc: freebsd security , security-officer@freebsd.org, Jeremie Le Hen , 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: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:04:56 -0000 At 09:39 AM 10/11/2006, Dan Lukes wrote: > Even if no new ports will be compilable on 4.x, even if > the old ports will not be updated with exception of update caused > by security bug, I vote for delaying EOL of 4.11 I would second that vote. Yes, some of the new enhancements in 6.x are nice to have, but there's something to be said for an older, leaner, meaner, extremely well tested system that "just works" and consumes less memory and fewer computing resources. Just this week, we looked at the status of 6.2 (still just a bit shaky) and its resource consumption (about 40% greater than 4.11) and opted to build another 4.11 server. This wasn't intended as a slight to 6.x; it was just the right thing to do under the circumstances. I also build embedded systems based on 4.11. I sometimes have to backport subtle kernel fixes myself, but it's worth it. IMHO, The FreeBSD Project should have some mechanism for recognizing the fact that in some cases (especially embedded systems and slower hardware) a really good, solid older implementation is the right choice and is worth maintaining. (And that's no April Fool's Day joke.) To do this doesn't constitute a "fork" and is of enough value to warrant a bit of developer time (though obviously different developers will take different amounts of interest in maintaining "classic" releases). --Brett Glass