Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:32:09 -0500 From: Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com> To: Michael Wayne <freebsd07@wayne47.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Seeking an extended-support O/S similar to FreeBSD Message-ID: <5659014B-03C2-4FBC-B2F9-4C1B667C2A67@dragondata.com> In-Reply-To: <20130329180646.GL42080@manor.msen.com> References: <20130328212955.GJ42080@manor.msen.com> <20130328231043.GA3666@ethic.thought.org> <CAOjFWZ6F9kjVxosO4LAiAmJAt1rTPOkrwHaHf3vqvXqgkEbWpg@mail.gmail.com> <20130329180646.GL42080@manor.msen.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 29, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Michael Wayne <freebsd07@wayne47.com> = wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:31:50PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: >>=20 >> Every other minor release of FreeBSD is supported for 2 full years, = with no >> new features added, just security fixes (aka Extended Releases). >>=20 >> And every major release of FreeBSD is supported for at least 4, = somtimes 5, >> years. >=20 > That's exactly the issue. After 4-5 years, there's nothing. >=20 >> FreeBSD isn't perfect (what OS is?), but it's amazing that you can = install >> the newest versions of MySQL, Firefox, KDE, Postfix, etc on 7.4 = (until the >> end of Feb, anyway), or 8.3, or 9.0, or 9.1. And can continue to get >> security fixes for all those releases (except 7.x now). >=20 > That's no help at all to a bunch of machines that started life on > 4.1 back in 2000 and will continue to run another 10-15 years, is > it? What's your suggestion for dealing with that? It's not like > anything currently supported is gonna fit on those machines without > a rediculous amount of effort. >=20 >> What's missing from FreeBSD support? >=20 > Having one release supported for an extended time. It would be > insane to consider maintaining every release for an extended period > but ONE release, supported for an extended period (decades) would > really help. We're far enough down the security path that there > are not that many security vulnerabilities in base. Ports generally > build just fine on older versions. =20 We have servers that are currently in production use that we purchased = in 2002. They're fully capable of running 9.1-RELEASE, so we keep them = updated regularly. FreeBSD 2.x through 9.1 are installable off a single = CD - disk space requirements have not increased in any substantial way. = Later kernels tend to have more things in modules, so memory usage may = be lower just with a GENERIC kernel.=20 Compatibility also isn't really an issue - this isn't like Windows where = upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 8 is going to leave you with a = bunch of applications that don't work and missing drivers for half your = stuff. In most cases support is additive, and backwards compatible.=20 It's very rare for a new version to pull support for hardware that's = even slightly commonly used. The only reason things get pulled are that = usually there's nobody with hardware anymore to even test it, so trying = to maintain compatibility even on an ancient version of FreeBSD is hard = because the ability to verify they haven't broken it is gone. You also need to consider power cost v.s. replacing hardware, too. A = server that was a beast in 2000 is likely slower than a modern day Atom = box, and likely uses 10-30x the power. We obsolete (and donate) old = equipment once replacing it pays for itself in 6 months. All of our = pre-2002 servers are gone now due to this, and we'll probably be in the = 2005 range by the end of the year. And keep in mind that there have been many vulnerabilities in the base = system, mostly local but some remote. Just pushing a patch out to = FreeBSD 4.1 is going to be a big undertaking because, again, it = supported some obscure stuff that got removed because there are no = developers who even have that hardware anymore. (ISDN for example) Asking for "decades" of support is rare for any software product, unless = you're talking about enterprise levels of support that basically pay for = a few people's salaries to be dedicated on it. To use Microsoft as an = example, Windows Server 2003 was released in 2003, and standard = support/updates ended in 2010. That's *paid* support that lasts 7 years. = You can pay even more gobs of money to get another 5 years of *support* = but no updates out of them. If you want security updates to Windows = Server 2003 beyond 2010, you installed Server 2008, which is supported = until 2015. Their basic policy is they support things for a minimum of 5 = years, or 2 years after the next version comes out, whichever is longer.=20= Rather than saying you want a 20-30 year commitment on one specific = version, can you go into more detail why updating isn't possible for = you? freebsd-update has made updating about as painless as I can = imagine it being. Especially if you want to live a little dangerously = and skip the last step that removes the old libraries - you don't need = to recompile anything if you really can't. If you're operating things = that are extremely risk averse where any change needs substantial = validation before putting it into production, you're probably better off = with a commercial OS that splits out individual changes instead of = rolling releases like FreeBSD. We walk a lot of our customers through keeping their systems updated, so = I'm always curious to hear why it's unpalatable for some reason. -- Kevin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5659014B-03C2-4FBC-B2F9-4C1B667C2A67>