> There are many reasons for this, and none of them are selfish (although it > remains possible to drum-up some selfish reason, all of the reasons behind > our motivation are in-fact unselfish). Truth-be-told, I welcome the > replacement of sysinstall but am very wary that ANY replacement will be able > to exactly replicate the hardware compatibility that sysinstall currently > enjoys. I do indeed envision a great celebration as FreeBSD-9 bucks > sysinstall but also at the same time have nightmares of receiving waves of > calls from people having trouble (for example) "installing FreeBSD-9 on > their AMD K6 based system, circa long-long-ago in a universe far-far-away." > (yes, we do have data centers running that very equipment with uptime in the > 1,000's of days). >
I'm sure I'm not fully aware of the situation at your data center, but would systems that have 1,000+ day uptimes be candidates for upgrade to FreeBSD 9? It seems that if a system has that kind of uptime, it's a high priority server and uptime needs to be maintained. Maybe it would be possible to have both sysinstall and bsdinstall on the same install medium? Thanks, Shawn Webb _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
