From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 28 12:08:00 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 205AC407 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:08:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D90932F61 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:07:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-69-249.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.69.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EF6724C8E; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:07:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s6SC7oiW001972; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:07:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:07:50 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Jos Chrispijn Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10 Message-Id: <20140728140750.aa515f3f.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <53D61F49.7090507@webrz.net> References: <53D61F49.7090507@webrz.net> Reply-To: Polytropon Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:08:00 -0000 On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:00:41 +0200, Jos Chrispijn wrote: > Would it be a good idea to use BSD 10 Stable in a commercial > environment or should I sitck to BSD 9.3 Stable for two years? Depends. Does your environment run applications or services that _require_ constant updates? Maybe updates which aren't available on v9? Then go with v10. Or maybe your software is not running on v10? Then you better stay with v9 as long as possible. Does your software require "the newest features"? Then you'll probably need -STABLE. Personally, I don't feel _that_ well running -STABLE in a prod class environment, I mostly tend to use -RELEASE and apply the security patches. But this is a question regarding the updating mentality for the OS, and _you_ need to decide: (a) install RELEASE and keep it running: doubleplusungood when security problems arise; (b) install RELEASE and use freebsd-update to add the security patches: higher updating frequency, but usually no need to change something at the installed ports; (c) install RELEASE, update the source tree to -STABLE and keep rebuilding world and kernel from source according to your schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, ...): maybe makes your system a "moving target" There's no "one answer fits all", and I'm sure you will receive other replies from the participants of this list. Keep in mind that _you_ are in charge and have to decide. However, v10 is relatively new (compared to v9), so some could see it as "still not mature enough" - 10.0 vs. 9.3 - there's a difference of 0.4 versions. :-) For sure, v10 isn't "experimental" anymore, and it introduces interesting features. Check if you _require_ those, which would justify the decision for v10. And _then_ decide on what updating path you want to follow, probably (b) or (c) mentioned before. And in worst case, if you can afford a "fallback system" or a little downtime, you can retract from your decision and always install a different OS version. It's not _that_ complicated to keep "both tracks open", even though making a decision and then following it is probably the better solution. My summary: Depends. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...