Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:36:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Security Announcements & Incremental Patches Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104111214510.52823-100000@roble.com> In-Reply-To: <bulk.49307.20010411114848@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Johnson wrote: > There is a difference between security fixes and a 'more low-key and > conservative set of changes intended for our next mainstream release'. I think this is a point many posters are missing. Production systems administration has to be conservative. A good systems administrator would *NEVER* run cvsup or -STABLE on a revenue generating production server for example. Change deltas must be kept to a minimum to minimize the risk of downtime or application problems. > I just want to add my voice as to how I use FreeBSD. Simply saying 'use > - -STABLE' to those of us running -RELEASE on production systems isn't > appropriate, Agreed. It might be worthwhile to point out that Linux is gaining market share by leaps and bounds while FreeBSD's user base remains relatively stagnant for *exactly* this reason. This is all IMHO. Perhaps I'm just spoiled by Solaris' patch process. Yet we have seen a significant increase in Sun purchases thanks to their Blade 100 and it's $1000 price (headless). The FreeBSD community has to make the choice: do you want to FreeBSD to be a great developer's OS and an also-ran production platform (Dag-Erling Smorgrav's "submit patches or shut up") or would it be better in the long term to shift some resources (like incremental security patches) in order to boost market share? -- Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" 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.4.21.0104111214510.52823-100000>