CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3

[Jo Rhett]

(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