On 2017-Jun-22 13:14:33 +0200, Michelle Sullivan <miche...@sorbs.net> wrote: >I know, but with potentially serious issues even M$ issue patches for >older release...
To my knowledge, Microsoft has issued a patch on one occasion for an especialy critical vulnerabilicy on an unsupported release. I've seen no indication that the Stack Clash vulnerability can be compared in severity to WannaCry. >hardware.... I have 9.x servers that 10.x/11.x and even 12.x are >unbootable (and given the nature of the hardware I expect people to say >'too old, you should replace the hardware' - not my call, and currently >not possible.) FreeBSD is a volunteer project. Supporting old releases requires effort that increases as the release gets older. The Project as a whole has published a support policy that is intended to strike a balance between requiring customers to upgrade (we realise that upgrading incurs a cost) and spending volunteer effort on maintaining old releases. Note that I am referring to _free_ support here. Unlike Microsoft, FreeBSD is open source. If the level of free support provided by the Project is insufficient for your needs, you always have the option of paying someone to provide whatever level of support you want. With respect to your 9.x servers, no-one is saying you must replace the hardware, just that the FreeBSD Project will not continue to provide you with free support whilst you choose to run 9.x on them. Note that 10.0 was released in January 2014, so you have had 3½ years to resolve the problem that your servers aren't compatible with 10.x. >Not asking for new versions or new releases.. just patches applied for >previous -STABLE trees.... As has been stated, the FreeBSD project will patch the supported -STABLE trees. -- Peter Jeremy
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
