On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Andy Kosela wrote:
Redhat/CentOS is more reliable here as backports involves both security and bug fixes, plus even new hardware enhancements.
In the FreeBSD environment, we call the place that gets a blend of security and bug fixes, plus new minor feature and driver enhancements "-STABLE", and the releases that pick up these changes "point releases". They happen more requently and with less risk than major releases, but still see enough development to represent functional improvements.
I guess here's my concern: we offer a spectrum of choice for "I want the most bleeding edge" to "I want no feature changes, just security fixes", and several points in between. We can argue about the exact placement of this points, but the reality is that the balance we have today seems to work well for many developers and users, and reflects a fairly carefully planned use of the available revision control and distribution technology.
The place for volunteers to come in is where they see an obvious niche for improvement -- for example, a few years ago this guy named Colin Percival turned up with a binary update system. After a couple of years of enhancement, breaking it in, etc, it's now a standard tool for maintaining FreeBSD systems, and he's our security officer. Similar opportunities exist for offering easier updates to packages, etc, but require people who have a clear need and the technical ability to do the work to turn up and do it.
Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
