HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Everyone, On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their End of Life and will no longer be supported by the FreeBSD Security Team. Since FreeBSD 6.4 is the last remaining supported release from the FreeBSD 6.x stable branch, support for the FreeBSD 6.x stable branch will also cease at the same point. Users of either of these FreeBSD releases are strongly encouraged to upgrade to either FreeBSD 7.3 or FreeBSD 8.1 before that date. The FreeBSD Ports Management Team wishes to remind users that November 30 is also the end of support for the Ports Collection for both FreeBSD 6.4 RELEASE and the FreeBSD 6.x STABLE branch. Neither the infrastructure nor individual ports are guaranteed to work on these FreeBSD versions after that date. A CVS tag will be created for users who cannot upgrade for some reason, at which time these users are advised to stop tracking the latest ports CVS repository and use the RELEASE_6_EOL tag instead. The current supported branches and expected EoL dates are: +-+ | Branch | Release | Type | Release date | Estimated EoL | |---+++-+-| |RELENG_6 |n/a |n/a |n/a |November 30, 2010| |-| |RELENG_6_4 |6.4-RELEASE |Extended|November 18, 2008|November 30, 2010| |-| |RELENG_7 |n/a |n/a |n/a |last release + 2y| |---+++-+-| |RELENG_7_1 |7.1-RELEASE |Extended|January 4, 2009 |January 31, 2011 | |---+++-+-| |RELENG_7_3 |7.3-RELEASE |Extended|March 23, 2010 |March 31, 2012 | |---+++-+-| |RELENG_8 |n/a |n/a |n/a |last release + 2y| |---+++-+-| |RELENG_8_0 |8.0-RELEASE |Normal |November 25, 2009|November 30, 2010| |---+++-+-| |RELENG_8_1 |8.1-RELEASE |Extended|July 23, 2010|July 31, 2012| +-+ - -- Colin Percival Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkzONUAACgkQOM7KaQxqam6AGgCcCsVMApQTN0x0fS4yZDfvzKNS 1T4AoJp/mS24RZF6DHrLWssplNNveGcb =L3fZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
Joe Shevland writes: > My thoughts are below - remembering its a volunteer project, people > spend their precious time to make it happen, and > noneofthatwisthandingitsstilldamngood: > > a) if you don't like it, fix it. > b) if you can't fix it, pay someone else to fix it > c) if you can't fix it or otherwise be helpful, remain silent That's a bit harsh. In more general terms, to get something done, you need someone with a) knowledge, b) opportunity and c) motivation. If you don't have all three, find someone who has at least one and provide what's missing. Money can provide opportunity, motivation, or both, but it is not the only solution. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On 9/21/2010 6:54 AM, Vadim Goncharov wrote: This thread, to this moment, has one practical statement: calls for volunteers and other major notifications should go to announce@, perhaps to Web site, too ... and since you've made that point, and several people in the project leadership have agreed with you, perhaps it's time to give it a rest? Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On 21/09/2010 11:49 PM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
On 2010-09-21 15:16, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
On 2010-09-21 13:39, {some mysterious person :-)} wrote:
The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early
signs that
some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those
removals, lesser
POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for
time-not-feature-based
releases, not so stable -STABLE as it used to be, and so on,
migrating to
other systems. And older users are more valuable to project than
newer ones.
May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if
decade-long
project is mostly ended, while those signs are still early and not
a strong
tendency?.. Given this thread, I've mentioned earlier about 12
messages in
announce@ from 2002 with such public calls for volunteers - there
are several
years already without these.
Andriy wasn't the one who wrote this. In fact, I'm not sure who the
quote actually came from because I never received the Email it came
from, but I'm under the impression it's from Vadim. My mail spool:
My bad for not checking the included reference.
I was also very much under the impression that that quote was Vadim's,
since it was in completeline with his previous complaints/rants/whining.
And yes, your are smart to stay out of the discussion. But this old
fart just had too much urge to react. So now I'll just go back to my
old lurking state.
My thoughts are below - remembering its a volunteer project, people
spend their precious time to make it happen, and
noneofthatwisthandingitsstilldamngood:
a) if you don't like it, fix it.
b) if you can't fix it, pay someone else to fix it
c) if you can't fix it or otherwise be helpful, remain silent
If you can't do a or b or c, and still have no options, below:
d) whinging never helps
e) those that whinge on volunteer projects are subject to the emperors wrath
f) kill the heretic, the witch, the unbeliever. Recover the gene-seed at
all costs.
Cheers
Joe
--WjW
___
freebsd-secur...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote: > I give up. > Thank $DEITY. Cheers Tom ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
Hi Andriy Gapon! On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:53:56 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': >>> Hmm, it's really simple. >>> If you want to shape the future of the project, then participate in the >>> places >>> where the future is shaped. If you want to know what's coming up in the >>> future, >>> then watch the places where the future is shaped. If you don't do either, >>> you get >>> what you get. Complaining post factum just doesn't work. (Numerous other >>> examples and projects also demonstrate that). >>> "Current", "stable" are not some alien versions of FreeBSD for some other >>> strange >>> people to use. >>> Those are your future releases. >>> Not looking into the future has its benefits - you are not doing anything; >>> but it >>> has costs too - you don't know your future. >>> Looking into the future and shaping it has obvious costs, but the benefits >>> are >>> clear too. >>> Business users and old FreeBSD users should know this best of all. >>> It's strange that you try speak on their behalf but do not seem to realize >>> these >>> simple things. >> >> The essence of your words and your position in other letters is: >> >> "We are an open source project exactly the same kind like many others: >> we have no [moral] responsibility to our users, we are selfish and want only >> your code; give us your code and you will have the right to freedom of >> speech, >> otherwise you're an untermensch". > > Please don't put your words into my mouth. > I've said what I've said. > Your interpretations do not interest me. That's not argument, and my words are logical consequences from your words, and you didn't refute. Still, my statements after, which you skipped (again! you are again skipping the actual truth which discomforts you!), are valid: you say that people who want to know the future or help the Project must go places such as current@, and official FreeBSD docs say that they don't. Thus you are still wrong. But you've failed to hold constructive discussion for 4 RTTs. No logic in reasons, no respect to POVs other than yours -> no hope to prove you something correctly as it is done in science and should be in FreeBSD mail lists. Just accusements. Sad. I give up. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nucli...@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
Hi Willem Jan Withagen! On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:59:46 +0200; Willem Jan Withagen wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': > I'm a FreeBSD user as early as 1993, still have the first 1.0 CD here as > nice remembrance. So I guess that I qualify as one of those "old > FreeBSD" users. > And I completely disagree with you. > If you have been such an old freebsd user,then you should know the > immense effort there has been to move GIANT out of the way. I cann't > even get close to describing what a huge respect I have for the people > that dared to undertake such a humongous effort. With an high > probability of being flamed to death... > But still ever since 5.x I've seen things really improve for the better. > And yes, I was sorry to see ISDN being removed, but as things have > progressed another version has been returned instead. > And sure I have more hardware than you can imagine that is no longer > supported. But it is all old, and worn down, sometimes it is even still > VESA stuff. > And right,there have been variations in the level of what you would like > to call stable. But compared to the "old days" I would say, it has > always been above my expectation. And note that I have and still do run > 24*7 business on this. FreeBSD has never NEVER ever let me down. That's for you. For me. For a lot of people. But when I see, in my circles, some old users - not any Linux newbies we shouldn't care, but old and skilled users - leaving or talking about where to go from FreeBSD, than you shouldn't ignore the facts. You should say that something, um, smells wrong. > So as far as I'm concerned you are barking up the wrong tree here. Even if you, while investigating for a bug, eventually find that it was not a bug, but during the search discover another bug, that is not the reason to fix the latter. This thread, to this moment, has one practical statement: calls for volunteers and other major notifications should go to announce@, perhaps to Web site, too, perhaps clarified how people can help with money or to hire something to work on the code. And that will make the FreeBSD Project better. So, not to flame more, do you disagree with this? -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nucli...@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On 2010-09-21 15:16, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
On 2010-09-21 13:39, {some mysterious person :-)} wrote:
The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that
some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser
POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for time-not-feature-based
releases, not so stable -STABLE as it used to be, and so on, migrating to
other systems. And older users are more valuable to project than newer ones.
May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long
project is mostly ended, while those signs are still early and not a strong
tendency?.. Given this thread, I've mentioned earlier about 12 messages in
announce@ from 2002 with such public calls for volunteers - there are several
years already without these.
Andriy wasn't the one who wrote this. In fact, I'm not sure who the
quote actually came from because I never received the Email it came
from, but I'm under the impression it's from Vadim. My mail spool:
My bad for not checking the included reference.
I was also very much under the impression that that quote was Vadim's,
since it was in completeline with his previous complaints/rants/whining.
And yes, your are smart to stay out of the discussion. But this old fart
just had too much urge to react. So now I'll just go back to my old
lurking state.
--WjW
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> On 2010-09-21 13:39, {some mysterious person :-)} wrote:
> >>The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that
> >>some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser
> >>POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for time-not-feature-based
> >>releases, not so stable -STABLE as it used to be, and so on, migrating to
> >>other systems. And older users are more valuable to project than newer ones.
> >>May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long
> >>project is mostly ended, while those signs are still early and not a strong
> >>tendency?.. Given this thread, I've mentioned earlier about 12 messages in
> >>announce@ from 2002 with such public calls for volunteers - there are
> >>several
> >>years already without these.
Andriy wasn't the one who wrote this. In fact, I'm not sure who the
quote actually came from because I never received the Email it came
from, but I'm under the impression it's from Vadim. My mail spool:
$ grep "Old Good Things" Mail/freebsd/freebsd-stable
> May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long
>> May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long
>>> May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long
>> May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long
The first mention of it was in an Email from Andriy, sent to Vadim, with
Andriy quoting someone words (the first paragraph shown above).
Strangely I can't find the mail on the official FreeBSD pipermail lists
either.
I'm staying out of the main discussion, but I'm just wanting to point
out that Andriy did not write the above quote.
--
| Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: [...] > If you want to shape the future of the project, then participate in the places > where the future is shaped. If you want to know what's coming up in the > future, > then watch the places where the future is shaped. If you don't do either, > you get > what you get. Complaining post factum just doesn't work. (Numerous other > examples and projects also demonstrate that). Stop feeding the troll, please. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On 2010-09-21 13:39, Andriy Gapon wrote: The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for time-not-feature-based releases, not so stable -STABLE as it used to be, and so on, migrating to other systems. And older users are more valuable to project than newer ones. May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long project is mostly ended, while those signs are still early and not a strong tendency?.. Given this thread, I've mentioned earlier about 12 messages in announce@ from 2002 with such public calls for volunteers - there are several years already without these. Well, let me pitch in here a bit, because this discussion has had me on the edge of commenting already for too long. I'm a FreeBSD user as early as 1993, still have the first 1.0 CD here as nice remembrance. So I guess that I qualify as one of those "old FreeBSD" users. And I completely disagree with you. If you have been such an old freebsd user,then you should know the immense effort there has been to move GIANT out of the way. I cann't even get close to describing what a huge respect I have for the people that dared to undertake such a humongous effort. With an high probability of being flamed to death... But still ever since 5.x I've seen things really improve for the better. And yes, I was sorry to see ISDN being removed, but as things have progressed another version has been returned instead. And sure I have more hardware than you can imagine that is no longer supported. But it is all old, and worn down, sometimes it is even still VESA stuff. And right,there have been variations in the level of what you would like to call stable. But compared to the "old days" I would say, it has always been above my expectation. And note that I have and still do run 24*7 business on this. FreeBSD has never NEVER ever let me down. So as far as I'm concerned you are barking up the wrong tree here. --WjW ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
on 21/09/2010 15:36 Vadim Goncharov said the following: > Hi Andriy Gapon! > > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:39:53 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: > FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': > >>> The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that >>> some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser >>> POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for time-not-feature-based >>> releases, not so stable -STABLE as it used to be, and so on, migrating to >>> other systems. And older users are more valuable to project than newer ones. >>> May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long >>> project is mostly ended, while those signs are still early and not a strong >>> tendency?.. Given this thread, I've mentioned earlier about 12 messages in >>> announce@ from 2002 with such public calls for volunteers - there are >>> several >>> years already without these. >> Hmm, it's really simple. >> If you want to shape the future of the project, then participate in the >> places >> where the future is shaped. If you want to know what's coming up in the >> future, >> then watch the places where the future is shaped. If you don't do either, >> you get >> what you get. Complaining post factum just doesn't work. (Numerous other >> examples and projects also demonstrate that). >> "Current", "stable" are not some alien versions of FreeBSD for some other >> strange >> people to use. >> Those are your future releases. >> Not looking into the future has its benefits - you are not doing anything; >> but it >> has costs too - you don't know your future. >> Looking into the future and shaping it has obvious costs, but the benefits >> are >> clear too. >> Business users and old FreeBSD users should know this best of all. >> It's strange that you try speak on their behalf but do not seem to realize >> these >> simple things. > > The essence of your words and your position in other letters is: > > "We are an open source project exactly the same kind like many others: > we have no [moral] responsibility to our users, we are selfish and want only > your code; give us your code and you will have the right to freedom of > speech, > otherwise you're an untermensch". Please don't put your words into my mouth. I've said what I've said. Your interpretations do not interest me. Have a good life. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
Hi Andriy Gapon! On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:39:53 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': >> The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that >> some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser >> POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for time-not-feature-based >> releases, not so stable -STABLE as it used to be, and so on, migrating to >> other systems. And older users are more valuable to project than newer ones. >> May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long >> project is mostly ended, while those signs are still early and not a strong >> tendency?.. Given this thread, I've mentioned earlier about 12 messages in >> announce@ from 2002 with such public calls for volunteers - there are several >> years already without these. > Hmm, it's really simple. > If you want to shape the future of the project, then participate in the places > where the future is shaped. If you want to know what's coming up in the > future, > then watch the places where the future is shaped. If you don't do either, > you get > what you get. Complaining post factum just doesn't work. (Numerous other > examples and projects also demonstrate that). > "Current", "stable" are not some alien versions of FreeBSD for some other > strange > people to use. > Those are your future releases. > Not looking into the future has its benefits - you are not doing anything; > but it > has costs too - you don't know your future. > Looking into the future and shaping it has obvious costs, but the benefits are > clear too. > Business users and old FreeBSD users should know this best of all. > It's strange that you try speak on their behalf but do not seem to realize > these > simple things. The essence of your words and your position in other letters is: "We are an open source project exactly the same kind like many others: we have no [moral] responsibility to our users, we are selfish and want only your code; give us your code and you will have the right to freedom of speech, otherwise you're an untermensch". But FreeBSD Project tries, to the extent possible (of course, volunteers are not paid), be different from those, and provides all those branches, lists, etc. for different people. Business users and old FreeBSD users value FreeBSD for this, and they know that it is official position and documented, e.g.: 12.1 Statement of General Intent The FreeBSD Project targets "production quality commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) workstation, server, and high-end embedded systems". And what they are complaining post factum is that things go _other way than declared_. And they are begin to go the way as you assertions above, which clearly contradicts FreeBSD's official declared goals. Yes, still that an open-source project, there are no liability, etc., etc. But my criticism earlier in the thread was not unconstructive - I've suggested one of the possible ways for those who cannot help us directly by code. Don't reject them just on this criteria (and Project never did before). -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nucli...@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
> The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that > some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser > POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for time-not-feature-based > releases, not so stable -STABLE as it used to be, and so on, migrating to > other systems. And older users are more valuable to project than newer ones. > May be it's time to revert to some of thet Old Good Things, if decade-long > project is mostly ended, while those signs are still early and not a strong > tendency?.. Given this thread, I've mentioned earlier about 12 messages in > announce@ from 2002 with such public calls for volunteers - there are several > years already without these. Hmm, it's really simple. If you want to shape the future of the project, then participate in the places where the future is shaped. If you want to know what's coming up in the future, then watch the places where the future is shaped. If you don't do either, you get what you get. Complaining post factum just doesn't work. (Numerous other examples and projects also demonstrate that). "Current", "stable" are not some alien versions of FreeBSD for some other strange people to use. Those are your future releases. Not looking into the future has its benefits - you are not doing anything; but it has costs too - you don't know your future. Looking into the future and shaping it has obvious costs, but the benefits are clear too. Business users and old FreeBSD users should know this best of all. It's strange that you try speak on their behalf but do not seem to realize these simple things. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Vadim Goncharov wrote: Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was removed" [emphasis mine] do you not understand? No, component removed was (1), I've underlined. The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this? Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what is it?.. Doug has already clarified, but just to follow up with some detail: Moving to a parallel network stack required that all portions of the stack code be updated to operate without the Giant lock present -- the Giant lock was a fundamental assumption in all kernel code in FreeBSD 4.x and earlier. This decade-long project was highly successful, and relied on members of the community stepping forward to adapt a very large code base by adding fine-grained locking to each component. The results have been extremely impressive, allowing our network stack to scale to 8+ CPUs (I'm actually testing with 32-thread systems as part of some network stack work I'm doing right now). Towards the end of the project, it was clear that a few components in the stack had attracted no interest from the community, and as such, were not going to get updated. As such, we went through a public deprecation and removal process, in which we appealed repeatedly for community members to update the code. This included i4b, one of our three ATM implementations, and one of our two IPSEC implementations. I've attached the i4b schedule below (a three-year process), but you can find information on the full process here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT This was not an issue of i4b operating more slowly than the rest of the stack: it was that the code required fundamental architectural changes without which it couldn't compile, let alone run. We're all happy to have ISDN support come back in the tree if there's an owner for doing it! In the end, any significant code base in the kernel requires ownership -- it can continue through many minor changes without an owner, but major retrofits, such as moving to fine-grained locking, need the attention of someone who understands the code, is able to test the code, and has the time to invest in the code. We do a pretty good job at arranging this with a multi-million line code base, all told. Robert DateDoneEvent 18 July 2005yes Post MPSAFE network stack plan to a...@. 04 July 2007yes Disconnect parts of I4B from the build. HEADS-UP to i...@. 17 July 2007yes Post NET_NEEDS_GIANT() reminder to a...@. 27 July 2007yes Remove NET_NEEDS_GIANT(). 22 March 2008 yes Last call to seek for help rewriting I4B to keep it alive. 15 May 2008 yes Final announcement on isdn@ that I4B will be removed from 8/7. 26 May 2008 yes Remove i4b from HEAD. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Policy for removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon)
On 09/08/2010 06:44, Vadim Goncharov wrote: > Hi Mark Linimon! > > On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:30:19 +; Mark Linimon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: > FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': > >>>> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. > >>> For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than >>> "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". >>> "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this? >>> Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what is >>> it?.. >> >> It wasn't "it works but slow". It was "it works, but networking throughput >> is limited on the modern hardware that the majority of our users employ". >> In particular, IIUC, 10GB network drivers were suffering under the old >> strategy. We simply were not competitive with other OSes, and we have >> many multiples more users interested in 10GBE than in ISDN. > > I understand that we need to support modern fast hardware but that doesn't > mean > we should drop working features for that. And... > >>> You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, but >>> rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still work. >> >> You do not understand how this was handled. > > ...and how this is handled in other OSes to which we have compete, er? They > all > also do dropping features to frighten away old users? Are there no alternative > ways to handle? Put network Giant code into bunch of #ifdef's, after all. > >> The situation was: an announcement was made that "in X months, all network >> drivers need to be made to run Giant-free so that FreeBSD can drop Giant >> from the neworking stack to move forward." Within that period, most of >> the drivers were updated. Repeated postings were made to the mailing list >> that "the following drivers still have not been converted, and need to be >> updated or they will be dropped." They weren't; they were droppped. > > No. See my answer to vwe@ that there were no proper announcements. With them, > for example, someone could get sponsored to update these drivers which were > needed by those FreeBSD users who can't maintain code themselves. That's a > last > resort, more likely volunteers will come, but you get the idea. > >> So while it could "still" work, it was slowing down progress. > > If it is not ideology, then what is it?.. > >> The fact of the matter is, FreeBSD is a big project with a finite number >> of developers. We try to keep as much coverage of systems as we can, but >> a reality of any large software engineering project is that older features >> sometimes have to be dropped to make progress. > >>From time to time such critical cases could possibly be handled by another > ways, I've mentioned one possible above. > >> The code still exists in the repository for any interested party to pick >> up and modernize. > > I hope that for this particular case alternative from ports will be enough. > But policy is not tied to one particular case, alas. > Would you please stop provoking a situation for which you are no more involved in other than running FreeBSD. Thank you. PS: The website in your signature is broke. This should give you enough to do for a while. -- jhell,v ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Policy for removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon)
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 6:24:11 am Vadim Goncharov wrote: > > Because the original I4B code didn't > > work without the Giant lock, and because no one stepped forward to fix > > that, the code had to be removed. > > No. The code needn't removal, the stack should be modified to be fast without > I4B and slow for those who wish to compile it with I4B anf Giant. Then > slowness > is their problem, not of the Project. No, that would require maintaining two network stacks, not just one. The shims to allow unlocked code to run were not trivial. The choices were this: 1) Moving forward on work to allow the network stack to scale on SMP systems (e.g. modern x86 multi-core servers) and support higher rate protocols such as 10GB, 40GB, and 100GB. 2) Stop all progress on making the network stack scale on SMP. I'm sorry, but 2) just isn't feasible. Not if FreeBSD is to continue to be a modern, relevant system. Also, despite your claims to the contrary, there _was_ adequate notice: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-June/072977.html This was also documented in the release notes for 7.0: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/relnotes.html If you wish to help work on ISDN support, I suggest you offer to test hps@' ISDN stack. hps@ recently became a committer so I think there is a very good chance his code will be brought into the tree. We do have a policy for removing code in that it only gets removed if no one is able to maintain it and/or test patches for it. I locked several of the remaining NIC drivers during the push to remove Giant and a few of them were removed from the system because no one had the hardware around to test the patches to add locking (think of really old ISA NICs that only do 10Mbps). Even in that case, the code will always live on in the source code control repository's history. That means it can always be resurrected if someone shows up who will maintain it and keep it up to date. At this point I think this thread has reached the end of its usefulness. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Policy for removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon)
Hi Mark Linimon! On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:30:19 +; Mark Linimon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': >>> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. >> For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than >> "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". >> "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this? >> Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what is >> it?.. > > It wasn't "it works but slow". It was "it works, but networking throughput > is limited on the modern hardware that the majority of our users employ". > In particular, IIUC, 10GB network drivers were suffering under the old > strategy. We simply were not competitive with other OSes, and we have > many multiples more users interested in 10GBE than in ISDN. I understand that we need to support modern fast hardware but that doesn't mean we should drop working features for that. And... >> You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, but >> rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still work. > > You do not understand how this was handled. ...and how this is handled in other OSes to which we have compete, er? They all also do dropping features to frighten away old users? Are there no alternative ways to handle? Put network Giant code into bunch of #ifdef's, after all. > The situation was: an announcement was made that "in X months, all network > drivers need to be made to run Giant-free so that FreeBSD can drop Giant > from the neworking stack to move forward." Within that period, most of > the drivers were updated. Repeated postings were made to the mailing list > that "the following drivers still have not been converted, and need to be > updated or they will be dropped." They weren't; they were droppped. No. See my answer to vwe@ that there were no proper announcements. With them, for example, someone could get sponsored to update these drivers which were needed by those FreeBSD users who can't maintain code themselves. That's a last resort, more likely volunteers will come, but you get the idea. > So while it could "still" work, it was slowing down progress. If it is not ideology, then what is it?.. > The fact of the matter is, FreeBSD is a big project with a finite number > of developers. We try to keep as much coverage of systems as we can, but > a reality of any large software engineering project is that older features > sometimes have to be dropped to make progress. >From time to time such critical cases could possibly be handled by another ways, I've mentioned one possible above. > The code still exists in the repository for any interested party to pick > up and modernize. I hope that for this particular case alternative from ports will be enough. But policy is not tied to one particular case, alas. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nucli...@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Policy for removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon)
Hi Doug Barton! On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:37:07 -0700; Doug Barton wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': > On 09/07/2010 02:31 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote: >> 07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >>> on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following: >>>>> Just to clarify things a little for those following it: >>>>> the original I4B code was removed >> ^ (1) >>>>> for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant >>>>> lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was >>>>> removed. >>>> >>>> But if it was used, removing a component just because of Giant lock >>>> is not >>>> practical and is purely ideologic, isn't it? >>> >>> Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was >>> removed" >>> [emphasis mine] do you not understand? >> >> No, component removed was (1), I've underlined. >> >>> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. >> >> For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than >> "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". > > I think you are misunderstanding the situation. It wasn't a case of, "It > works but it's slow." The situation was that in order to take > performance of the network stack as a whole up to the next level it was > necessary to remove the Giant lock. But definitely this IS that situation: "network stack with I4B/Giant works but it's slow" - you see, "It" = "stack w/ I4B". > Because the original I4B code didn't > work without the Giant lock, and because no one stepped forward to fix > that, the code had to be removed. No. The code needn't removal, the stack should be modified to be fast without I4B and slow for those who wish to compile it with I4B anf Giant. Then slowness is their problem, not of the Project. >>> BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc. >>> >>> So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-) >> >> You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, > > In this case it was 100% about the latter. In addition to the fact that > without volunteers there is no project, period; the fact that no one > steps forward to maintain/improve a given piece of code is generally a No, I've just described to vwe@ that there were no proper notices so wherefrom volunteers will appear?.. > pretty good indicator that it's not widely used. If code isn't widely used that is still not the reason to axe it out. If it is almost not used - then may be. Also, how widely it is used may be easily underestimated due to lack of announcements and surveys. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nucli...@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Policy for removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon)
Hi v...@freebsd.org! On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:01:55 +0200; v...@freebsd.org wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': > On 09/07/10 23:31, Vadim Goncharov wrote: >> 07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. >> >> For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than >> "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". >> >> "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this? >> Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what >> is it?.. >> >>> BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc. >>> >>> So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-) >> >> You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, >> but rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still >> work. Personally, I don't use ISDN, so didn't said anything that time, >> but now, there are more precedents of removing components from FreeBSD - ^ >> so, for now, I must say that this policy is harmful. Though I doubt that >> one man's opinion could change Project's policy until it's too late... >> > Are _you_ willing to maintain it? Have you read carefuly? I don't use ISDN (and so won't maintain), but I consider this policy, as time goes by, could touch subsystems which now I will be interested in. Precedents that already happened, to give an idea, include (but not limited to) e.g. window(1) and pppd(8). > it (i4b) worked, nobody was maintaining it, nobody opted to maintain it, > everybody was asked to maintain it, nobody wanted, everybody has been > asked to speak up if the code will be axed out, nobody spoke up, it has > been axed out ... 13 months ago and even then nobody complained about. Hey, _everybody_ was asked? And nobody complained? But this is simply not true. So then why someone complains now? Answer is simple: because it wasn't everybody. Let's go to gmane and look to archives of announce@ for past 8 years. Exclude release and security announcements. Exclude conferences announcements. Exclude finance-related Foundation announcements and other DVD-like stuff. Then you left with actual Project info. Exclude announcements about new projects and status reports, as they tell about new fetutures only. What is left after? Not glamourous marketing but real info about events that could harm production systems: Mark Murray Perl5 is leaving the base system for 5.0 and after! 15 May 02 Kris Kennaway Ports scheduled for removal on Feb 203 Nov 03 Kris Kennaway Ports scheduled for removal in March and April 25 Feb 04 Kris Kennaway Ports scheduled for removal on August 2022 Jun 04 Joe Marcus Clarke Updating guidelines for ports 13 Oct 04 Kris Kennaway Ports scheduled for removal 30 Jul 05 Kris Kennaway Volunteers needed to help maintain ports25 May 06 Ken Smith Upcoming change in Daylight Savings Time25 Feb 07 Kris Kennaway HEADS UP: xorg 7.2 update in progress 19 May 07 Doug Barton BIND 8 is EOL as of 27 August 2008 (fwd)28 Aug 07 Joe Marcus Clarke HEADS UP: Ports support for 5.X is no more 02 Jun 08 Peter WemmFreeBSD.org begins switch to Subversion 04 Jun 08 Only 12 letters for 8 years! And we see that _earlier_ Project actully did such announcements - individual ports could be viewed analogous to individual base system subsystems like ISDN or window, etc. Only 4 years ago. And these days Project began to turn to some another policy with not-so-good smell. Surely this is not coincidence. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nucli...@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
> > The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. > For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than > "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". > "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this? > Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what is > it?.. It wasn't "it works but slow". It was "it works, but networking throughput is limited on the modern hardware that the majority of our users employ". In particular, IIUC, 10GB network drivers were suffering under the old strategy. We simply were not competitive with other OSes, and we have many multiples more users interested in 10GBE than in ISDN. > You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, but > rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still work. You do not understand how this was handled. The situation was: an announcement was made that "in X months, all network drivers need to be made to run Giant-free so that FreeBSD can drop Giant from the neworking stack to move forward." Within that period, most of the drivers were updated. Repeated postings were made to the mailing list that "the following drivers still have not been converted, and need to be updated or they will be dropped." They weren't; they were droppped. So while it could "still" work, it was slowing down progress. The fact of the matter is, FreeBSD is a big project with a finite number of developers. We try to keep as much coverage of systems as we can, but a reality of any large software engineering project is that older features sometimes have to be dropped to make progress. The code still exists in the repository for any interested party to pick up and modernize. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
[removed security@ which is not nearly related to topic] On 09/07/10 23:31, Vadim Goncharov wrote: 07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote: The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this? Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what is it?.. BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc. So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-) You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, but rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still work. Personally, I don't use ISDN, so didn't said anything that time, but now, there are more precedents of removing components from FreeBSD - so, for now, I must say that this policy is harmful. Though I doubt that one man's opinion could change Project's policy until it's too late... Vadim, it (i4b) worked, nobody was maintaining it, nobody opted to maintain it, everybody was asked to maintain it, nobody wanted, everybody has been asked to speak up if the code will be axed out, nobody spoke up, it has been axed out ... 13 months ago and even then nobody complained about. Are _you_ willing to maintain it? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On 09/07/2010 02:31 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote: 07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote: on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following: Just to clarify things a little for those following it: the original I4B code was removed ^ (1) for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was removed. But if it was used, removing a component just because of Giant lock is not practical and is purely ideologic, isn't it? Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was removed" [emphasis mine] do you not understand? No, component removed was (1), I've underlined. The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". I think you are misunderstanding the situation. It wasn't a case of, "It works but it's slow." The situation was that in order to take performance of the network stack as a whole up to the next level it was necessary to remove the Giant lock. Because the original I4B code didn't work without the Giant lock, and because no one stepped forward to fix that, the code had to be removed. BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc. So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-) You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, In this case it was 100% about the latter. In addition to the fact that without volunteers there is no project, period; the fact that no one steps forward to maintain/improve a given piece of code is generally a pretty good indicator that it's not widely used. but rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still work. This was not the case here. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote: on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following: Just to clarify things a little for those following it: the original I4B code was removed ^ (1) for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was removed. But if it was used, removing a component just because of Giant lock is not practical and is purely ideologic, isn't it? Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was removed" [emphasis mine] do you not understand? No, component removed was (1), I've underlined. The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)". "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this? Sacrificing "work" for "fast"?.. Hmm, if it is not ideology, then what is it?.. BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc. So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-) You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers, but rather in the Project's policy - delete something which could still work. Personally, I don't use ISDN, so didn't said anything that time, but now, there are more precedents of removing components from FreeBSD - so, for now, I must say that this policy is harmful. Though I doubt that one man's opinion could change Project's policy until it's too late... -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
> P.S. why is security@ in cc: ? Original announcement: > Message-id: <4c7e71dc.1040...@freebsd.org> > From: FreeBSD Security Officer > Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:31:40 -0700 (17:31 CEST) > To: FreeBSD Stable , > freebsd security All respondents (I happened to be first, Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:09:33 +0200) retained stable@ & security@ Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:36:02 +0200 I added: > i...@freebsd.org : I just re-subscribed (used to be on long ago) Now it's know Hans Petter Selasky has a code stack to try, & Robert Watson has posted it'd be welcome ... etc, I guess its up to us ISDN users to install, try, & discuss on a new thread on isdn@ Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Mail plain text, Not HTML, quoted-printable & base 64 dumped with spam. Avoid top posting, It cripples itemised cumulative responses. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following: >> Just to clarify things a little for those following it: the original I4B >> code >> was removed for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the >> Giant >> lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was removed. > > But if it was used, removing a component just because of Giant lock is not > practical and is purely ideologic, isn't it? Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was removed" [emphasis mine] do you not understand? The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc. So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-) P.S. why is security@ in cc: ? -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
Hi Robert Watson! On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 11:47:29 +0100 (BST); Robert Watson wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon': >>> It seems code exists :-) >>> >>> http://old.nabble.com/ISDN4BSD-on-8-current-td23919925.html >>> ISDN4BSD package has been updated to compile on FreeBSD >>> 8-current >>> >>> http://www.selasky.org/hans_petter/isdn4bsd/ >>> >>> Apparently needs massaging into main FreeBSD tree. >> >> I agree that my I4B code should be re-written somewhat before committed. >> Possibly we should update the API's present too, to support IP-telephony >> aswell. > Just to clarify things a little for those following it: the original I4B code > was removed for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant > lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was removed. But if it was used, removing a component just because of Giant lock is not practical and is purely ideologic, isn't it? -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nucli...@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: - Or whatever other method to get ISDN back in kernel ? It seems code exists :-) http://old.nabble.com/ISDN4BSD-on-8-current-td23919925.html ISDN4BSD package has been updated to compile on FreeBSD 8-current http://www.selasky.org/hans_petter/isdn4bsd/ Apparently needs massaging into main FreeBSD tree. I agree that my I4B code should be re-written somewhat before committed. Possibly we should update the API's present too, to support IP-telephony aswell. Just to clarify things a little for those following it: the original I4B code was removed for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was removed. I'm happy to see ISDN support reintroduced as long as it will see ongoing maintenance/etc. I'm not familiar with Hans's most recent code, but the integration of his USB stack and his recent receipt of a FreeBSD commit bit suggest a promising future. I would suggest trying to rope in a reveiwer and collaborator (perhaps someone like Bjoern Zeeb?) to work through it before considering a merge, however. This is especially important with projects like VIMAGE, network stack parallelism projects, etc, on-going to make sure that the new ISDN code will be able to support these new features rather than become a potential obstacle (as the old code did for the MPSAFEty work). Robert ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
Hi, Reference: > From: vol...@vwsoft.com > Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:10:32 +0200 > Message-id: <4c7ec148.9040...@vwsoft.com> vol...@vwsoft.com wrote: > [trimmed cc list] > > Julian, > > On 09/01/10 18:09, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > >> On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their > > > > FreeBSD -7& -8 do not support ISDN I'm told. > > So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN. > > Somebody told you wrong. Or I maybe misheard. > There's still i4b code in 7-STABLE. It's been axed out for 8-CURRENT > short before 8.0-R. So you may want to run 7.x if you depend on ISDN > (AFAIK it's still in a working condition for 7). Thanks Volker, I've started upgrading a box 7.2 to 7.3-rel then will insert card & try. Any tech issues thay may arise I'll raise on isdn@ Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Mail plain text, Not HTML, quoted-printable & base 64 dumped with spam. Avoid top posting, It cripples itemised cumulative responses. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
[trimmed cc list] Julian, On 09/01/10 18:09, Julian H. Stacey wrote: On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their FreeBSD -7& -8 do not support ISDN I'm told. So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN. Somebody told you wrong. There's still i4b code in 7-STABLE. It's been axed out for 8-CURRENT short before 8.0-R. So you may want to run 7.x if you depend on ISDN (AFAIK it's still in a working condition for 7). Cheers, Volker ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On Wednesday 01 September 2010 18:53:46 Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told. > > > So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN. > > > > > > Could FreeBSD reinsert ISDN back into current/8/7 support ? > > > Perhaps via: > > > - a student SOC project ? > > > - FreeBSD foundation paying a FreeBSD consultant (I know one who has the > > > > > > expertise already, has the time, & could use some money (I don't mean > > > me, & he didn't aske me to post this, it'll come as a suprise to him > > > :-) > > > > > > - Or whatever other method to get ISDN back in kernel ? > > > > It seems code exists :-) > > > > http://old.nabble.com/ISDN4BSD-on-8-current-td23919925.html > > ISDN4BSD package has been updated to compile on FreeBSD > > 8-current > > > > http://www.selasky.org/hans_petter/isdn4bsd/ > > > > Apparently needs massaging into main FreeBSD tree. > > I agree that my I4B code should be re-written somewhat before committed. > Possibly we should update the API's present too, to support IP-telephony > aswell. > > --HPS Sorry, I didn't know your code existed, till I was told & searched, Great ! I'll build a new PC soonish to try with current (my gates are 6.2 & 6.4 now). i...@freebsd.org : I just re-subscribed (used to be on long ago). Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Mail plain text, Not HTML, quoted-printable & base 64 dumped with spam. Avoid top posting, It cripples itemised cumulative responses. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
"Julian H. Stacey" writes: Hello, > FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told. It seems that hps@ maintains an isdn stack outside of freebsd tree : http://www.selasky.org/hans_petter/isdn4bsd/ Regards Éric Masson -- >Une RedHat (je ne connais pas les autres distributions) ce configure >aussi simplement que windows pour un poste client. Hélas, elle génère un maximum de traffic sur Usenet -+- TP in guide du linuxien pervers - "Je veux revoir ma SLS ! -+- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
On Wednesday 01 September 2010 18:53:46 Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told. > > So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN. > > > > Could FreeBSD reinsert ISDN back into current/8/7 support ? > > Perhaps via: > > - a student SOC project ? > > - FreeBSD foundation paying a FreeBSD consultant (I know one who has the > > > > expertise already, has the time, & could use some money (I don't mean > > me, & he didn't aske me to post this, it'll come as a suprise to him > > :-) > > > > - Or whatever other method to get ISDN back in kernel ? > > It seems code exists :-) > > http://old.nabble.com/ISDN4BSD-on-8-current-td23919925.html > ISDN4BSD package has been updated to compile on FreeBSD > 8-current > > http://www.selasky.org/hans_petter/isdn4bsd/ > > Apparently needs massaging into main FreeBSD tree. I agree that my I4B code should be re-written somewhat before committed. Possibly we should update the API's present too, to support IP-telephony aswell. --HPS ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
> FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told. > So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN. > Could FreeBSD reinsert ISDN back into current/8/7 support ? > Perhaps via: > - a student SOC project ? > - FreeBSD foundation paying a FreeBSD consultant (I know one who has the > expertise already, has the time, & could use some money (I don't mean me, > & he didn't aske me to post this, it'll come as a suprise to him :-) > - Or whatever other method to get ISDN back in kernel ? It seems code exists :-) http://old.nabble.com/ISDN4BSD-on-8-current-td23919925.html ISDN4BSD package has been updated to compile on FreeBSD 8-current http://www.selasky.org/hans_petter/isdn4bsd/ Apparently needs massaging into main FreeBSD tree. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Mail plain text, Not HTML, quoted-printable & base 64 dumped with spam. Avoid top posting, It cripples itemised cumulative responses. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
> On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told. So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN. DSL is faster than ISDN, but Losing ISDN would be unfortunate: - Not all can get DSL speed, if they live far from phone exchange. - ISDN allows one more security (caller ID comes from phone company), additional to whatever crypto keys/passwords. - ISDN on the PC allows one to have Name (via lookup of number) of phone caller & which incoming destination number received call, show up on an X Term - I've had that with FreeBSD over 10+ years now :-) Could easily be hooked to a database springing up a a custome xterm according to calling customer ID, called number & time of day (all being used to select which service info ) But if we drop ISDN ...! Could FreeBSD reinsert ISDN back into current/8/7 support ? Perhaps via: - a student SOC project ? - FreeBSD foundation paying a FreeBSD consultant (I know one who has the expertise already, has the time, & could use some money (I don't mean me, & he didn't aske me to post this, it'll come as a suprise to him :-) - Or whatever other method to get ISDN back in kernel ? Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Mail plain text, Not HTML, quoted-printable & base 64 dumped with spam. Avoid top posting, It cripples itemised cumulative responses. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Everyone, On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their End of Life and will no longer be supported by the FreeBSD Security Team. Since FreeBSD 6.4 is the last remaining supported release from the FreeBSD 6.x stable branch, support for the FreeBSD 6.x stable branch will also cease at the same point. Users of either of these FreeBSD releases are strongly encouraged to upgrade to either FreeBSD 7.3 or FreeBSD 8.1 before that date. The FreeBSD Ports Management Team wishes to remind users that November 30 is also the end of support for the Ports Collection for both FreeBSD 6.4 RELEASE and the FreeBSD 6.x STABLE branch. Neither the infrastructure nor individual ports are guaranteed to work on these FreeBSD versions after that date. A CVS tag will be created for users who cannot upgrade for some reason, at which time these users are advised to stop tracking the latest ports CVS repository and use the RELEASE_6_EOL tag instead. The current supported branches and expected EoL dates are: +-+ | Branch | Release | Type | Release date | Estimated EoL | |---+++-+-| |RELENG_6 |n/a |n/a |n/a |November 30, 2010| |-| |RELENG_6_4 |6.4-RELEASE |Extended|November 18, 2008|November 30, 2010| |-| |RELENG_7 |n/a |n/a |n/a |last release + 2y| |---+++-+-| |RELENG_7_1 |7.1-RELEASE |Extended|January 4, 2009 |January 31, 2011 | |---+++-+-| |RELENG_7_3 |7.3-RELEASE |Extended|March 23, 2010 |March 31, 2012 | |---+++-+-| |RELENG_8 |n/a |n/a |n/a |last release + 2y| |---+++-+-| |RELENG_8_0 |8.0-RELEASE |Normal |November 25, 2009|November 30, 2010| |---+++-+-| |RELENG_8_1 |8.1-RELEASE |Extended|July 23, 2010|July 31, 2012| +-+ - -- Colin Percival Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkx+cdwACgkQFdaIBMps37K/VACgnkGPT1G76AYaor9ifcTeFDA2 dzgAn0Oqz5UsoaoCvWycUSsFFlpBi0gB =WWDq -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
