HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon

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://us
e.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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-securityfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-secu
rity
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-security-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Laco wrote:

> Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0... 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.

6.x is a significantly more refined release series than 5.x
ever was, and this 
is a result of a lot of very hard work.  If you didn't like
5.x, you should 
try 6.x and see how it does for you.  Don't assume that
problems you may have 
experienced in 5.x persist.  In particular, the whole world
of ACPI has 
matured drastically in the last 3-4 years, which has
resolved a lot of issues 
with hardware probing, etc, that existed in earlier 5.x
releases.  Part of 
this is vendors fixing their BIOS's, part of it is
improvements in the Intel 
ACPI CA code, and part of it is adding blacklisting,
workarounds, etc, for 
known BIOS problems.  File system performance and stability
have gone up 
drastically, as has network performance and stability.  So I
would encourage 
you to re-evaluate in the 6.x world, ideally with the most
recent 6.x release 
available.  Undoubtably there will be imperfections, but as
I hope the 6.x 
release processes have revealed, we're working hard to
resolve any issues.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
freebsd-securityfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-secu
rity
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-security-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

Chris Laco <clacosummitracing.com> writes:
> 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 transition from 4.x to 5.x was very painful for a number
of
reasons (both technical and organisational) mainly having to
do with
trying to do too much at the same time.  6.x was a
significant
improvement in terms of stability and maturity, and
hopefully 7.x will
continue that trend.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - desdes.no
_______________________________________________
freebsd-securityfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-secu
rity
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-security-unsubscribefreebsd.org"