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

[Paul Schmehl]

--On June 6, 2008 3:08:25 PM +0200 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> wrote:

> Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists at tx.rr.com> writes:
>> [...] I reacted in anger because I felt the OP was being savagely
>> attacked rather than being responded to with professionalism.  Later
>> in the thread some folks got around to asking which PRs he was
>> referring to, but that was after attacking him for having the temerity
>> to suggest that perhaps 6.2 shouldn't be EOL.  [...]  I don't recall
>> him ever refusing.  I think after his initial post he's been forced to
>> defend himself from attack from 360 degrees.  [...]
>
> I came in late, and thus had the benefit of reading most of thread in
> context rather than piece by piece over time, and in my opinion, the
> above is a gross misrepresentation.  I think you need to go back and
> re-read the thread from the beginning.  Here, let me help you.

Thanks for the help.

My point still stands.  I think the behavior of the developers on the 
lists should be of as high a quality as the work they do on the OS (which, 
as I have stated, is first rate.)  Descending to the levels that some have 
(some of which you quote here) reflects poorly on the OS and its 
developers.

The fact that FreeBSD is open source does not negate the fact that its 
users are its customers and should be treated with respect, 
professionalism and yes, patience.

And again, I am trying neither to excuse nor to defend Jo's behavior. 
That's his gauntlet.  I am saying that the fact that developers possess a 
unique and valuable skill that is much appreciated by those of us who use 
the product of their labor does not excuse or justify some of the boorish 
behavior that was exhibited in this thread - regardless of how insulting 
one may have felt Jo's responses were.

Since a lot of people seem to want to pontificate without doing much of 
anything helpful, allow me to bring this discussion back to Jo's point:

<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=&severity=&priority=&class=&state=&sort=none&text=bge&responsible=&multitext=&originator=&release=%5EFreeBSD+6>

That url lists 6 serious problems for bge and 3 non-critical problems, 
some dating to more than two years ago.  Two were patched, one is 
suspended and 6 are still open; four of those critical.

<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=&severity=&priority=&class=&state=&sort=none&text=gmirror&responsible=&multitext=&originator=&release=%5EFreeBSD+6>

That url lists 1 serious problem and 3 non-critical problems with gmirror, 
all of which remain open.

<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=&severity=&priority=&class=&state=&sort=none&text=twe&responsible=&multitext=&originator=&release=%5EFreeBSD+6>

That url refers to locking problems that cause kernel panics using the twe 
driver.

<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/107608>

That url refers to a hang that renders a system unusable when using the 
twa driver.

Jo's concerns about updating to 6.3 rather than sticking with a system 
that's working for him don't seem unreasonable to me.  Do they to you?

Furthermore, it seems the reaction of developers, that he wasn't being 
specific enough are rendered moot by the urls above, which were easily 
accessed by me, someone with little knowledge at all of two of the three 
issues.  So, rather than berating Jo for not producing PRs, wouldn't it 
have been more professional to list the relevant PRs (just as I have done, 
which took me less time than the multiple angry responses to Jo took the 
involved developers) and ask him which of them gave him the greatest 
concerns?

What's the point of the constant demands to either produce specific 
relevant information of STFU?  Are the developers trying to impress the 
list with their professionalism?  Their patience?  Their knowledge?

If you're offended that I hold the developers to a higher standard than I 
do the users, then I plead guilty as charged and believe I am correct to 
do so.

As to your specific points:

>> I'm sorry that the FreeBSD project failed to conform to your
>> expectations.  However, I invite you to actually try 6.3 for yourself
>> instead of assuming that it will fail.
>
> This is the crux of the matter - Jo is complaining about software he
> hasn't even tried.  There is absolutely no way anybody can help him
> until he actually tries 6.3 and reports any actual bugs and regressions
> he finds."

Not only is this wrong, but it completely misses the point.  Why should Jo 
have to upgrade to find out if his servers will fail under the conditions 
already articulated in existing, unresolved PRs that affect hardware that 
he is presently using?  That's a bit like saying, "Buy this new car.  Sure 
it has bugs that could easily directly affect you, but what's the chance 
you'll encounter them?  in the off chance that they do, then you can help 
us resolve them."

You reveal extreme naivette when you state this:

> That is also untrue.  None of these are "bugs that are affecting [Jo]",
> since he hasn't tried running 6.3 at all.

Trust me.  From a server admin's perspective, a bug affects you if it 
exists in hardware you use.  Whether or not you're actually using the OS 
is completely irrelevant.  Upgrading to the OS would be foolhardy.  Even 
testing it on a handful of boxes will not prove that it won't fail under 
load in production.  Anyone who has done testing knows it can only 
simulate, not duplicate, the conditions under which production servers 
run.  I personally have experienced catastrophic failures after extensive 
testing that revealed no problems.

A civic-minded, community oriented FreeBSD user might volunteer a box to 
act as a guinea pig (and Jo has), but a server admin would be a bit nuts 
to experiment with his infrastructure.  Nor do the claims of others that 
he ought to have a test bed or he's negligent impress me.  No one but he 
knows the constraints that prevent him from doing so.  Any assumptions 
otherwise simply reveal the biases and ignorance of those making the claim.

All of us are constrained to one degree or another by our circumstances, 
and the assumption that someone else's circumstances mirror our own 
reveals either an ignorance of reality or an arrogance that is unseemly.

Furthermore, other users who are already running 6.3 with no reported 
problems would not reassure me that I would not encounter the problems 
that are clearly articulated in the PRs and which directly affect my 
hardware and remain unresolved!

Or perhaps the developers believe that Jo is simply lying when he says 
they affect him and refuse to listen to him until he provides the proof by 
upgrading and experiencing breakage?

Yes, I think some perspective is needed here, but it's not only Jo who 
needs it nor is it he who needs it the most.

I've lectured enough.  If anyone doesn't get the point by now further 
explanation isn't going to help.

Paul Schmehl
If it isn't already obvious,
my opinions are my own and not
those of my employer.