From owner-freebsd-security Thu Apr 18 18: 3:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A5137B405 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from caddis.yogotech.com (caddis.yogotech.com [206.127.123.130]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02178; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:03:34 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by caddis.yogotech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3J13Ys35796; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:03:34 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15551.27877.743534.149538@caddis.yogotech.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:03:33 -0600 To: Benjamin Krueger Cc: Jeff Palmer , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:21.tcpip In-Reply-To: <20020418154338.D23267@rain.macguire.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020417230144.032ad390@nospam.lariat.org> <200204171923.g3HJNga58899@freefall.freebsd.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20020418095356.024354c0@nospam.lariat.org> <012901c1e725$da237e90$0286a8c0@jeffrey> <20020418154338.D23267@rain.macguire.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > FreeBSD currently does not enable easy maintainance between critical release > points for large server environments. Using cvsup to maintain source builds > for environments like these ( say 400 servers or more ) is not only > unacceptable without an on staff developer and release engineer, it is > infeasible. > > For those of you who would be quick to note that "Corporations with > 400 servers should be able to afford a developer and release engineer" > please note that 400 NT, Solaris, AIX, or HP-UX servers can be > maintained by a small team of administrators, and do not require these > extra resources. So, for 400 NT, Solaris, AIX, or HP-UX servers you allow a small team, and for FreeBSD you don't even allow a single engineer? Seems kind of a double standard. And as a long-time administrator, I disagree that FreeBSD is more difficult to maintain releases across systems. I've done Ultrix, SunOS, Solaris, FreeBSD, and (ack!) Linux, and I find that FreeBSD is second to Solaris, but barely so. However, Solaris doesn't even provide anything remotely close to what Brett is asking, and they're getting paid alot for the OS than FreeBSD is getting paid. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message