From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 12:03:07 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF908106566B for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:03:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB768FC1F for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:03:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CF4112888; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:03:06 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: onWoNmeANV8lU25xNTSQrc0DQTYflt2lydf2REKVgIQx 1212667386 Received: from empiric.lon.incunabulum.net (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED0F11EB0E; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4847D5F8.80605@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:03:04 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080514) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jo Rhett References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <4846E637.9080101@samsco.org> <48472DB6.5030909@samsco.org> <6010676B-91B0-4AF8-ACF8-039A59B29331@netconsonance.com> <484736E0.6090004@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 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 Jun 2008 12:03:07 -0000 Jo Rhett wrote: > > I am suggesting that given that the current bug list for 6.3-RELEASE > is both (a) too large and (b) breaks things that work fine in 6.2 ... > that I think pushing 6.2 (the real stable release) into EoL is a bit > rushed. I sympathize with the development costs of maintaining old > versions. Again, I will help in any way I can. I'm sorry to hear about the problems you've been having. It is worth remembering that FreeBSD is an open source project, and it's maintained on a best-effort basis -- it is offered for free and without any warranty. Like any other open source project, risk management and change management becomes a two-way street, because that's the trade-off struck with the open source model. The risks, as well as the benefits, have to be factored in carefully to your company's technology strategy, as I'm sure you're aware. I'm very surprised that the 6.3 train has been a big issue for you, although speaking from the development side of the fence, there are a lot of moving targets, and vendor support of the OS does play a part. It is difficult to offer any more specific advice without knowing in more detail exactly what's causing such problems for you, although I see you've offered general pointers, the folk directly involved need to be pointed at direct information. The FreeBSD Project just doesn't have the resources to do compatibility testing on the scale of e.g. Windows Hardware Quality Labs, as I'm sure you are also aware. I take on board what you say about your organisation holding back on an upgrade because there are PRs filed for the hardware you use, and having worked in an investment banking environment, I understand this level of conservatism is warranted. However, I point out again: it's the open source model, and where hardware compatibility is concerned, it really is a case of "suck it and see". Always has been, no different anywhere else. Open source requires user participation. Microsoft run the WHQL because their status as a going concern depends on it. I'm pleased to hear about your offer of hardware resources for developers. However, this is only part of the problem. To my mind, you need to find the right people, with the right skills, to deal with the issues, and quite often, those guys are already in demand, and thus their time can attract a high value. Open source succeeds because money is not the only motivation. The alternative is DIY, and that is "the point". If you need firm guarantees about support, consider contracting with someone to do that. Many companies using FreeBSD already outsource this kind of support requirement to 3rd parties. There are also FreeBSD hardware vendors who support FreeBSD as a platform. If you want someone to take responsibility, make 'em an offer. thanks, BMS