freebsd stable - Oct 2006 - [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: sthaug@nethelp.no
> To: freebsd-security@dfmm.org
> Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:20:18 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> 
> > I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in 
> > limited supply, but if you solicit the opinion of the community, 
> > I'd bet that more people would rather see 4.x support continue 
> > than 5.x support.
> >
> > I know that it would be a violation of the stated policy, but I 
> > think that supporting 4.x and 6.x over the next year would 
> > benefit way more people than the current plan of supporting 5.x 
> > and 6.x and eol'ing 4.x.
> 
> Yes, fully agreed. I'd much rather have longer support for 4.x than
5.x.
> 
> We still have lots of machines running 4.11 here.
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
Mine too..
I've lots of 4.11 prod server and it's runs smooth and perfect for
long..
Hope it can be supported longer, maybe another 2-3 years? :)



-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com

Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0... 
> 	Problem is performance and trust in stability. It's 
> money and hardware independent problem.
> 
> 	5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count 
> it as competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release 
> in 6.x tree. 6.0 has stability problem. The 6.1 is 
> sufficiently stable on average use, but it still has problems 
> in edge situations. The 6.2 become first RELEASE in 6.x tree 
> acceptable for serious production use. 6.3 will be candidate 
> for first trustable RELEASE if there will not be significant 
> problem with 6.2. It's nothing special on major version 
> changes - 3.0 has been buggy, 4.0 has been buggy, 5.0 has 
> been almost unusable. It's common for other systems also - 
> first usable release of Novell Netware in 3.x tree has been 
> 3.11 (after buggy 3.0 and 3.1), but stable release has been 
> 3.12 for example.
Oddly enough, I've heard this very sentiment elsewhere this week. Take the
post with a grain of salt, but it does touch on the matter.

http://use.perl.org/~scrottie/journal/31273
>From my personal experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x  machine, all on
the same hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install than I ever
did with my 4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to see if 6.0 will run on
it.

Just another $0.000000002.

-=Chris

Chris Laco wrote:
> From my personal experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x  machine, all
on
> the same hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install than I
ever
> did with my 4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to see if 6.0 will run
on
> it.
The odds are pretty close to 100% that things will run better with 6.x 
than with 5.x. Many fixes that have been MFC'ed to 6.x have not and 
will not be ported to 5.x.

hth,

Doug

-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection