Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:01:55 -0500 From: Gary Schrock <root@eyelab.psy.msu.edu> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why is -stable not secure? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961216230153.006a7190@eyelab.msu.edu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 07:19 PM 12/16/96 -0700, you wrote: > - from an admin's perspective, -stable is far from dead. > There isn't even another release out yet; how can it be > dead? We need something to run on our servers. If it were > typical MicroSoft junk we may need to upgrade to try to > make it work, but -stable works. Very very well. Too > well to upgrade to 2.2 until it is proven. The first > 2.2 release will have more bugs than -stable has now. > More features, but more bugs; they will get worked out, but > not overnight. Many people are using FreeBSD for servers > because they see it as having more stability over time > than the L word. For the people using -stable in a server > features don't matter. Minor (in that they are a few > lines of code, not that they are unimportant) security > fixes are important. Personally I think this hits the nail on the head. Especially since there's no alternative at this point besides the -stable branch for those of us who need a solid server that's not undergoing constant change for adding/stabilizing features that by in large we don't have a need for immediately. I've seen a lot of 'the users this' and 'the developers that' about this issue, but let's face it: until there is a 2.2-stable, there is an absolute necessity for 2.1-stable, and that needs to include security patches. >I realize that most developers want to let -stable die, and agree >with their reasons for doing so. However, I have trouble with simply >killing it with no alternatives present. I completely agree with this statement. Gary Schrock root@eyelab.msu.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19961216230153.006a7190>