Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:27:00 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: tracking -stable in the enterprise Message-ID: <26E009D2-88D1-4DA7-94B7-D1D740FE4321@netconsonance.com> In-Reply-To: <e7db6d980806250346q2871abd3n2147b936155cc4e2@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cc535c80806080449q3ec6e623v8603e9eccc3ab1f2@mail.gmail.com> <200806231051.03685.jhb@freebsd.org> <A27FDCBE-2C4E-49A5-8826-2FB47E2FEA3E@netconsonance.com> <e7db6d980806250346q2871abd3n2147b936155cc4e2@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > No. Why on earth would we do that? if we wanted to cause ourselves > that much pain for no good reason, we'd go get a pencil and stab > ourselves in the eye. > > We don't upgrade machines that have been deployed unless there is a > good reason to. This makes sense. But for personal curiosity sake, what if Yahoo needed to stick with supported FreeBSD releases? How would you deal with updating that many machines every 12 months? Would that be possible in your business? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?26E009D2-88D1-4DA7-94B7-D1D740FE4321>