From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 8 19:11:39 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFF2106564A for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:11:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com) Received: from mail.stovebolt.com (mail.stovebolt.com [66.221.101.249]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7C88FC27 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:11:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com) Received: from [192.168.2.102] (cpe-24-175-90-48.tx.res.rr.com [24.175.90.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.stovebolt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E68511438F for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:11:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:11:36 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <4C198A92A6055152F92E8C36@Macintosh.local> In-Reply-To: <3cc535c80806080449q3ec6e623v8603e9eccc3ab1f2@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cc535c80806080449q3ec6e623v8603e9eccc3ab1f2@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) X-Munged-Reply-To: To reply - figure it out MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; boundary="==========17181458DAC5857FD966==========" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Paul Schmehl List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:11:39 -0000 --==========17181458DAC5857FD966========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --On June 8, 2008 1:49:35 PM +0200 Andy Kosela =20 wrote: > > FreeBSD has always been known for its legendary stability and mature > code base which is why many commercial companies depend on it every > day. "The anomaly" as someone said of long term support for 4.x releases > only helped to see FreeBSD as more stable and viable solution than Linux > by many businesses. Mission critical systems needs long term support > (read: at least backporting security patches) and stable systems that > can run for years without interruption. When it comes to stability vs > development maybe there is time to rethink FreeBSD overall strategy and > goals. Major companies using FreeBSD in their infrastructure like Yahoo! > or Juniper Networks would definetly benefit from such moves focused on > long term support of stable releases. I honestly think it is in their > interest to support, even financially Interesting thoughts. Maybe the time is ripe for a RedHat-like support=20 company for FreeBSD. Paul Schmehl If it isn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. --==========17181458DAC5857FD966==========--