From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jun 23 05:36:38 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11074D9CEF9 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:36:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB23A78BAB for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:36:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id E6C31D9CEF8; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:36:37 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E653CD9CEF7 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:36:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFA3578BAA for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:36:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (124-148-108-84.dyn.iinet.net.au [124.148.108.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v5N5aWms062404 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:36:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version To: Kurt Jaeger Cc: freebsd-ports References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> <20170623023954.GA29157@home.opsec.eu> <856b02db-26b2-91c5-acc6-f62fc99af49e@freebsd.org> <20170623052334.GC29157@home.opsec.eu> From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <85832c4b-fa02-d205-7296-0b48c186c9a9@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:36:26 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170623052334.GC29157@home.opsec.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:36:38 -0000 On 23/6/17 1:23 pm, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >>> There's a blog post from one of the folks that explains the >>> idea behind that 'fast update' mode of operations, and yes, >>> he's doing real work. >>> http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/1776-rolling-out-patches-and-changes-often-and-fast/ >> That is ONE kind of installation. > Well, there's the thinking that in the not-to-far future, everything > is connected, and you'll need to be able to update at any time > because of whatever security/threat that IT ecosystem throws at you. > >> It DOES NOT WORK when th most you can upgrade a customer system is >> once a year or once every two years. > The 'other side' of the debate thinks: Well, if they think this > is the way to do it, they have a problem and need to change > their procedures. > > The viewpoint is: That system can start debating with the next > worm/trojan coming along, but that won't help. The assumption > is: everything is connected/on the internet, and not even > voluntarily. > > Think connected cars, IoT etc. > >> I will add that such users would help their own case by fixing such >> issues and feeding the changes back to their branches upstream, >> thus helping maintain the branch. Maybe we could have a system of >> "corporate sponsors" for these branches. > Given the state of fundraising in open source, I doubt that this > will be viable. My personal experience is that if it were put in the form of an annual s subscription, most mid sized corporate finance offices wouldn't blink at $20k if they thought it was an important part of their product. (that's the key) Some wouldn't blink at 50K. ("the software is free but we need to help pay for people to do real work to keep it safe, it'll save us (some fraction of) a full time person"). The problem is that such a set of sponsored branches does not exist so knowing who'd sign up and who would't is just guesswork, and the companies have made "alternative arrangements" whether that means somewhat forgoing the ports tree (e.g Vicor) or building an infrastructure around ports head ( e.g. Panzura), or having some other snapshotting system ( e.g Ironport/Cisco)