(Top posted because I didn't want to snip what you said)
Bruce, all of what you said below is well known. I understand and
don't have any problem with this. You seem to be trying to address
something I wasn't asking about -- certifications, etc and such. Not
a concern.
The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
stable version and force people to choose between two different
unstable versions? Is this really the right thing to do?
On Jun 5, 2008, at 5:03 AM, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
It is worth remembering that FreeBSD is an open source project,
and it's maintained on a best-effort basis -- it is offered for free
and without any warranty. Like any other open source project, risk
management and change management becomes a two-way street, because
that's the trade-off struck with the open source model.
The risks, as well as the benefits, have to be factored in
carefully to your company's technology strategy, as I'm sure you're
aware.
I'm very surprised that the 6.3 train has been a big issue for
you, although speaking from the development side of the fence, there
are a lot of moving targets, and vendor support of the OS does play
a part.
It is difficult to offer any more specific advice without knowing
in more detail exactly what's causing such problems for you,
although I see you've offered general pointers, the folk directly
involved need to be pointed at direct information.
The FreeBSD Project just doesn't have the resources to do
compatibility testing on the scale of e.g. Windows Hardware Quality
Labs, as I'm sure you are also aware.
I take on board what you say about your organisation holding back
on an upgrade because there are PRs filed for the hardware you use,
and having worked in an investment banking environment, I understand
this level of conservatism is warranted.
However, I point out again: it's the open source model, and where
hardware compatibility is concerned, it really is a case of "suck it
and see".
Always has been, no different anywhere else. Open source requires
user participation. Microsoft run the WHQL because their status as a
going concern depends on it.
I'm pleased to hear about your offer of hardware resources for
developers. However, this is only part of the problem.
To my mind, you need to find the right people, with the right
skills, to deal with the issues, and quite often, those guys are
already in demand, and thus their time can attract a high value.
Open source succeeds because money is not the only motivation.
The alternative is DIY, and that is "the point".
If you need firm guarantees about support, consider contracting
with someone to do that. Many companies using FreeBSD already
outsource this kind of support requirement to 3rd parties. There are
also FreeBSD hardware vendors who support FreeBSD as a platform.
If you want someone to take responsibility, make 'em an offer.
thanks,
BMS
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
