From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jun 5 7: 7:32 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from point.osg.gov.bc.ca (point.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.102.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8596714D19 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:07:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cy@cschuber.net.gov.bc.ca) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by point.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) id HAA12474; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:07:29 -0700 Received: from cschuber.net.gov.bc.ca(142.31.240.113), claiming to be "cwsys.cwsent.com" via SMTP by point.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpda12472; Sat Jun 5 07:07:09 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cwsys.cwsent.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id HAA17684; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906051407.HAA17684@cwsys.cwsent.com> Received: from localhost.cwsent.com(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "cwsys" via SMTP by localhost.cwsent.com, id smtpdO17671; Sat Jun 5 07:06:59 1999 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group X-OS: FreeBSD 2.2.8-RELEASE X-Sender: cy To: jacobsm@customersvc.com (Mark Jacobs) Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Q] How stable is FreeBSD 3.X ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 May 1999 08:43:07 EDT." <19990525124511140.AAA351@bc006429.tcs.timeinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 07:06:58 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <19990525124511140.AAA351@bc006429.tcs.timeinc.com>, Mark Jacobs wri tes: > > > > At 01:53 AM 5/25/99 , David Schwartz wrote: > > > > > > Have you stopped to consider that users may just want to _use_ FreeBSD > > >without having to follow the development? Have you considered that bad > > >releases affect them? This is yet another piece of the 'Open Source' versu > s > > >'company supported' puzzle. > > > > NT out of the box needs to be patched for performance and security reasons. > > No matter what OS you deploy, you must follow the development so to > > speak... Even if only for security reasons. Yes, it would be nice in a > > perfect world if this were not the case. > > > > ---Mike > > ********************************************************************** > > Mike Tancsa, Network Admin * mike@sentex.net > > Sentex Communications Corp, * http://www.sentex.net/mike > > Cambridge, Ontario * 01.519.651.3400 > > Canada * > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > In my "real job" I am a MVS (now OS/390) systems programmer > responsible for maintaing an operating system and other related > program products. > > The software that ships out of the box (i.e. release) is obsolete > upon arrival. That is just a fact of life in a huge operating system. > Depending on how often I apply service, I could have many hundred > to many thousand software changes to apply. > > Users don't care about operating system changes, in fact they fight > them (why do we have to test?), but we as system administrators > are responsible for maintaining the best operating system we can, > and that requires work on our part. In my former life (over 7 years ago) as an MVS systems programmer, it was common to apply PUT tapes (patches) with over 12,000 PTF's (patches). IBM ships 8-9 PUT tapes per year, each with approximately 4,000 - 5,000 patches each. Add to that 20-30 USERMODS (my own modifications to MVS). I've worked at one site where we had 126 USERMODS. I'm currently running 3.2R with 6 patches (gleaned from the CVS tree) and 3 of my own modifications to the kernel. In my 25 year career, I've yet to see a perfect (unpatched) operating system. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Open Systems Group Internet: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca ITSD Cy.Schubert@gems8.gov.bc.ca Province of BC "e**(i*pi)+1=0" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message