At 09:39 AM 10/11/2006, Dan Lukes wrote:
Even if no new ports will be compilable on 4.x, even if the old ports will not be updated with exception of update caused by security bug, I vote for delaying EOL of 4.11
I would second that vote. Yes, some of the new enhancements in 6.x are nice to have, but there's something to be said for an older, leaner, meaner, extremely well tested system that "just works" and consumes less memory and fewer computing resources. Just this week, we looked at the status of 6.2 (still just a bit shaky) and its resource consumption (about 40% greater than 4.11) and opted to build another 4.11 server. This wasn't intended as a slight to 6.x; it was just the right thing to do under the circumstances. I also build embedded systems based on 4.11. I sometimes have to backport subtle kernel fixes myself, but it's worth it.
IMHO, The FreeBSD Project should have some mechanism for recognizing the fact that in some cases (especially embedded systems and slower hardware) a really good, solid older implementation is the right choice and is worth maintaining. (And that's no April Fool's Day joke.) To do this doesn't constitute a "fork" and is of enough value to warrant a bit of developer time (though obviously different developers will take different amounts of interest in maintaining "classic" releases).
--Brett Glass _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
