Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:09:04 -0800 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org, current <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006) Message-ID: <20051222210904.GH39174@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051218023725.GM63497@over-yonder.net> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <20051217220021.GB93998@svcolo.com> <20051218023725.GM63497@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 02:00:21PM -0800 I heard the voice of > Joe Rhett, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > Increasing the number of deployed systems out of date [...] On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 08:37:25PM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > This doesn't make any sense. If you install a 6.0 system, in 6 months > (assuming you installed it right when 6.0 was cut, for simplicity), it > will be 6 months out of date. It's neither more nor less out of date > if the current release is then 6.1, or 6.2, or 8.12; it's still 6 > months back. No, you're missing the point. More core OS upgrades means less incremental patches (which are easier to apply than a full update). That means that more systems will fall out of date because of the time-consuming nature of full operating system upgrades. > A case could, in fact, be made that more common releases lead to far > FEWER deployed systems out of date, since it makes it far easier for > those who already use binary upgrades instead of source to get things > faster. Huh? That's backwards. If we can't schedule the downtime for a full operating system upgrade (which takes far longer than it should) then the system won't get upgraded. Small incremental patches can be built on central systems and rsynced outwards fairly easily in comparison. > Now, this is not to say that easier incremental binary upgrades are a > bad thing, but bad analogy doesn't help anybody... Not to be rude, but I think your definition of analogy is wrong. There was no analogy in my comments - no parallelism at all. I was focused on the single topic, and not referring to anything else. Back to the point, the comments aren't "bad". Your idea that binary operating system upgrades from ISO are "easier" demonstrates that you're talking about home computers, not production servers. I'm talking about production environments, which I made very clear in my description. ...few have CDs ...many don't have local consoles, or local staff ...many don't have local disks at all (flash-based systems) "Install new OS from ISO" is completely impractical in all of these environments. "Install from source" is impossible in most. -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051222210904.GH39174>