From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 5 09:47:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552B916A41F; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 09:47:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from hausen@punkt.de) Received: from gate.ka.punkt.de (kagate.punkt.de [217.29.33.131]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F99C43D5D; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 09:47:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from hausen@punkt.de) Received: from hugo10.ka.punkt.de (hugo10.ka.punkt.de [10.0.0.110]) by gate.ka.punkt.de with ESMTP id k059ljba024233; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:47:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from hugo10.ka.punkt.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hugo10.ka.punkt.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k059lcuL024289; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:47:38 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ry93@hugo10.ka.punkt.de) Received: (from ry93@localhost) by hugo10.ka.punkt.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id k059lctk024288; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:47:38 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ry93) From: "Patrick M. Hausen" Message-Id: <200601050947.k059lctk024288@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> In-Reply-To: <20060105093220.GJ1358@svcolo.com> To: Jo Rhett Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:47:38 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, current , K?vesd?n G?bor , Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 09:47:47 -0000 Hello! > > > 1. modified kernels are foobar > > > ..yet are practically mandatory on production systems > Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows, Mac OS X or Solaris, to name just three commercial OS's. And third party drivers (which one could count as "kernel modifications") did fail and will fail sometimes in weird ways even for minor version upgrades/patches. BTDT - Windows Services Packs, Solaris patches, Mac OS X updates, reboot, *boom*, because some hardware suppliers driver didn't adhere to the OS manufacturer's standards or because the latter silently changed something undocumented. While I would appreciate a packaged core system or at least a better definition of "core system" at all, I strongly believe that binary updating a custom kernel is impossible. With "better definition of core system" I mean, if you have a long lived production system that you might have upgraded from 4.x to 5.x to 6.0, you will have a lot of cruft lying on your filesystem that once was part of the "core" and now isn't. And there is no simple and automated way to find out what to delete ... Just some thoughts, Patrick M. Hausen Leiter Netzwerke und Sicherheit -- punkt.de GmbH Internet - Dienstleistungen - Beratung Vorholzstr. 25 Tel. 0721 9109 -0 Fax: -100 76137 Karlsruhe http://punkt.de