From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Mar 7 12:29:41 2003 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 E0CCF37B401 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:29:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.det2.ameritech.net (mailhost1-sfldmi.sfldmi.ameritech.net [206.141.193.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA35F43FBF for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:29:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from elh@outreachnetworks.com) Received: from preacher ([66.73.186.169]) by mailhost.det2.ameritech.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20030307202936.GBTD8853.mailhost.det2.ameritech.net@preacher> for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:29:36 -0500 Received: (nullmailer pid 971 invoked by uid 1000); Fri, 07 Mar 2003 20:29:36 -0000 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:29:36 -0500 From: Eric L Howard To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "leak" in softupdates? Message-ID: <20030307202935.GA487@outreachnetworks.com> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20030305204526.T38115@hub.org> <20030307090033.GA61037@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030307101718.GA1908@kevad.internal> <3E68B9B3.9030509@tenebras.com> <20030307151723.L18433@hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030307151723.L18433@hub.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Favorite-Scripture: Romans 8:18 X-Theocratic-Rule-Advocate: http://www.crossmovement.com X-Registered-Secret-Agent: Agent Double-Naught Seven X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.18-bf2.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At a certain time, now past [Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 03:19:49PM -0400], Marc G. Fournier spake thusly: > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Michael Sierchio wrote: > > > Vallo Kallaste wrote: > > > > > He has rather unusual requirements compared to a lot of others. As I > > > understand he runs hundreds of jails and has thousands of processes, > > > putting real challenge to VM. All this means that FreeBSD > > > isn't ready to enterprise yet .... > > > > What a mind-blowingly stupid thing to say. If the concern is > > with stability and performance, one would track -SECURITY and > > not -STABLE. > > Actually, I've tried -SECURITY ... my servers crashed more often :) And I would think that such a problem speaks more toward the quality of the FreeBSD release that you choose to run...or your hardware...or God knows what... When you hunted down the cause of the crash...what exactly was it? I've got servers tracking the release branch that have been up for anywhere from 6 to 9 months. Before that, I was flirting w/ a year. > have you ever tried to get someone to investigate/fix something that is > considered a 'dead line'? The thing with -SECURITY is that its exactly > that ... no bug fixes go into it, only critical security stuff ... so, if > I were to report a bug on -SECURITY, it would most likely get ignored, > since there is a very good chance that its already fixed in -STABLE, but > nobody is going to back-patch it ... Bugs do get fixed in the release branch, just depends on the severity. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvs-tags.html That said... My case [I've had wonderful success running the release branch] is no weightier than yours [you've had wonderful success running -STABLE]. Too many details left out... http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html ~elh -- Eric L. Howard e l h @ o u t r e a c h n e t w o r k s . c o m ------------------------------------------------------------------------ www.OutreachNetworks.com 313.297.9900 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JabberID: elh@jabber.org Advocate of the Theocratic Rule To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message