Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:11:36 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <4C198A92A6055152F92E8C36@Macintosh.local> In-Reply-To: <3cc535c80806080449q3ec6e623v8603e9eccc3ab1f2@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cc535c80806080449q3ec6e623v8603e9eccc3ab1f2@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==========17181458DAC5857FD966========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --On June 8, 2008 1:49:35 PM +0200 Andy Kosela <andy.kosela@gmail.com>=20 wrote: > > FreeBSD has always been known for its legendary stability and mature > code base which is why many commercial companies depend on it every > day. "The anomaly" as someone said of long term support for 4.x releases > only helped to see FreeBSD as more stable and viable solution than Linux > by many businesses. Mission critical systems needs long term support > (read: at least backporting security patches) and stable systems that > can run for years without interruption. When it comes to stability vs > development maybe there is time to rethink FreeBSD overall strategy and > goals. Major companies using FreeBSD in their infrastructure like Yahoo! > or Juniper Networks would definetly benefit from such moves focused on > long term support of stable releases. I honestly think it is in their > interest to support, even financially Interesting thoughts. Maybe the time is ripe for a RedHat-like support=20 company for FreeBSD. Paul Schmehl If it isn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. --==========17181458DAC5857FD966==========--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C198A92A6055152F92E8C36>