Actually, I'm talking out my ass. I know it's some version prior to 2005 and I'm only guessing I meant SP3. I don't work on it, i've just heard the number 3 thrown around with it. I'll remove myself from the conversation before I make a larger fool of myself :)
On Apr 30, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Matt Wilson <sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really would depend on the user. Part of my company still runs on SQLServer > 2003, for instance... > > Corporate infrastructure rarely sees upgrades. Your cousin with the wordpress > fetish, on the other hand... > > > what is SQLServer 2003? > can't see that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SQL_Server > btw. SQLServer has more enterprise level lifecycle: > http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2852 > http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2852 > > it's much longer than the mysql 2 years after first GA + 3 years extended > support. > http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/08/22/mysql-end-of-life-eol-policy/ > > so imo enterprise doesn't mean that you run EOLed version, but that you have > longer support so you can upgrade less frequently. > for example PCI-DSS mandates: > "All critical systems must have the most recently released software patches > to prevent exploitation. > Organizations should apply patches to less-critical systems as soon as > possible, based on a risk-based vulnerability management program." > > I don't see why can't we change this for php-next. > That would still give us time to document the change and for the users to > take actions. > I don't think that many people who uses 5.0 when php-next get released would > be eager to upgrade. > > Tyrael > > Tyrael >
