Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:02:40 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD in good standing in netcraft survey Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011031902290.61881-100000@roble.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
We do support backwards compatibility to even before we were > "FreeBSD" We interoperate just fine. Ease of management is somewhat > lacking, but admintool for Solaris isn't exactly a god-send either. Backwards compatibility and interoperability are relative. "Just fine" is also relative. We must support considerably different environments because I don't consider admonitions to "keep current" just fine any more than I consider Microsoft tech support's default "reinstall the OS" just fine. I don't know anyone who uses admintool so that's a red-herring. By ease of management I would point you to red-hat and windows. Not my cups of tea mind you but their efforts at ease of use are, at least partially, reflected in their respective market shares. > What you were talking about but missed in your summary is that we > don't have a very good upgrade path between releases and releases > are abandoneded a _bit_ prematurely. I'd agree that the upgrade path is not smooth but disagree with the "bit prematurely" part. When I have to upgrade a NFS, sendmail, DNS, CVS, backup server it can be a real logistical task. If I can leave the customer at 3.3 say, or even 2.2.8, and just apply whatever patches are needed that saves everyone a lot of time and money. For this reason incremental maintenance patches are a good thing. If, on the other hand, I have to tell a customer their 3.4 firewall, installed just a few months ago, is no longer supported and that's why there are no new ports they don't often respond well. This is not a rant nor is it blaming anyone. It is just a professional observation, the way things are in my business. Your business may allow you the time and freedom to do a lot more upgrading and keeping current. Lucky for you. > However let's put some of the blame on the userbase because... There is no blame, rather the basic relationship of time, money and motivation. Nobody expects a volunteer group of expert programmers to spend time on patches for older revisions, at least not without being paid for it. That's where the commercial OS vendors have an advantage. Now if BSDi or someone else were to apply some budget to a patch system like Solaris' it would probably bring them some market share. Isn't that what we're all interested, market share and 3rd party support? > If anyone was willing to spend as much as they did on Solaris > equipment, software licensing and support we'd probably still have > people actively developing on FreeBSD 2.2.8. What you consider "as much" and what I consider "as much" must be considerably different. I design, install and manage Solaris, FreeBSD, and Linux servers for a living. Been doing it since before there was a Solaris, FreeBSD, or Linux OS. In my experience Solaris is not expensive. Expensive is when a Unix consultant sends you a bill for 40 hours of datacenter upgrades every few months. > You want binary upgrades options? Talk to BSDi, or one of the > numerous other quality FreeBSD supporting companies about contracting > it for your company, it will pay off in the long run a lot more > than just ranting about what you see as short-comings. One person's rant is another's market opportunity... IMHO, -- Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0011031902290.61881-100000>