Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:11:49 -0500 From: Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org> To: D J Hawkey Jr <hawkeyd@visi.com> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, Michael Lucas <mwlucas@FreeBSD.ORG>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tangent for discussion: FreeBSD performs worse that Linux Message-ID: <20011210171149.A32462@blackhelicopters.org> In-Reply-To: <20011210155924.A1542@sheol.localdomain>; from hawkeyd@visi.com on Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:59:24PM -0600 References: <20011210074151.A29219@sheol.localdomain> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011210152926.4035T-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20011210155924.A1542@sheol.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:59:24PM -0600, D J Hawkey Jr wrote: > Right now, these is exactly one such release, 4.3, for security fixes. > Will there always be exactly one, such that when 4.5 is released, 4.3 > will fall off the planet, and 4.4 takes its place? Or might there be two, > 4.3 and 4.4? As far back as possible. Bad answer, I know, but it's much like the answer for 3.x. :( > This comes 'round to one of my original questions, too: Why, as an example, > isn't the DELACK patches Matt made recently considered "important" enough > to be backported to RELENG_4_3 (which I have more generically referred to > as RELENG_(current - 1) or RELENG_(release - 1))? It has been said that a > fix might be backported to RELENG_(current - 1) that isn't necessarily a > security issue; can't that be expanded to any (or perhaps just "major") > fixes that don't imply a new feature of RELENG_(current)? Because DELACK isn't a security problem. It's a performance problem. It's a serious performance problem, but not a security problem. They had to draw the line somewhere, and since the security-officer group is supporting this they get to call the shots. If you do a good enough job, perhaps you can wind up supporting this in the main source tree. :) > The site Michael and I have discussed will be hugely deficient in terms > of what can be made available to any previous release (compared to what > is applied to -STABLE), but as it sits right now, it would be better than > nought for those that can't stay -STABLE. Bingo. Something is better than nothing. -- Michael Lucas mwlucas@FreeBSD.org, mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011210171149.A32462>