Solved Is FreeBSD for Business Use . . . No Longer an Option?

[Dave-D]

Perhaps we should get back to the root of the issue (it seems) - what issues are you running into on 13.2?

You shouldn’t be running into anything major going from 13.1 to 13.2. As always, updating with boot environments is always a good choice in case you find some corner case others have not.

No, the major problem I'm having is:

--> Having to do a whole business-system upgrade every (approx.) 6 months if I used the minor point release model. Which is way too labor intensive. As a business, I need something with long-term support in the form of patches and security updates. I now understand that to be the "STABLE" releases. The whole thing was confusing to me.

The second problem I was having was with 13.2-RELEASE in general. It was a clean install.
Problems:
--> Internet connection totally gone after installing Calibre office suite. Removed Calibre, still no inernet. Did clean re-install of 13.2-RELEASE, internet working.
--> Misc. file error (not a valid file type (or something like that), when going to move a file created with OpenOffice.
--> Sound / Video would play on YouTube, but not on Rumble or any site with embedded Rumble video. Sound would not play from a different site I've been using for months on 13.1-RELEASE.


But, the main problem is still:
I need an operating system for business use, without spending all my time in forced upgrades every 6 months.

 

[Dave-D]

TESTING...

FreeBSD 12.4 is near end up support (Dec 31, 2023), so thought I would do a test install to make sure it still works.
So, I installed last most-recent STABLE release (FreeBSD 12.4-STABLE).
Installed without error.
freebsd-update fetch failed (but then there are no updates to fetch, seeing that its STABLE).
It said: "Cannot upgrade from a version that is not a release using freebsd-update. Instead, freebsd can be directly upgraded by source or upgraded to a
RELEASE/RELENG version prior to running freebsd-update."

So, my next question is:

How would I upgrade my existing FreeBSD 12.4-STABLE
to the next STABLE release, FreeBSD 13.2-STABLE?
Or much I do a complete reinstall from bare metal?

I'm planning on running 13.2-STABLE, but installing that would not give me the same basis for testing,
since 13.2 is a current release.

-D

 

[ralphbsz]

Do you understand the difference between STABLE and RELEASE?

Hint: The thing called STABLE is not what you think it is. If you want the one that can be upgraded easily, stays the same for long periods, and has support, you need to use RELEASE.

 

[Dave-D]

Do you understand the difference between STABLE and RELEASE?

Hint: The thing called STABLE is not what you think it is. If you want the one that can be upgraded easily, stays the same for long periods, and has support, you need to use RELEASE.

That's what I thought too.
Looks like we are both wrong.

RELEASE is only supported up to 3 months after the next release becomes available.
Which puts me in a perpetual have-to-upgrade-the-whole-business-system-every-six-months---yet-again---type of cycle.
Not good for business.

Exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

Looks like a lot of people are confused about this. . .

 

[Dave-D]

Results - FreeBSD 12.4-STABLE

When I run either of the the following two commands, I get the same result:

1. To fetch security patches:
freebsd-update fetch

CONSOLE RESPONSE: "src component not installed, skipped freebsd-update: Cannot upgrade from a version that is not a release using freebsd-update. Instead, freebsd can be directly upgraded by source or upgraded to a RELEASE/RELENG version prior to running freebsd-update."

2. Attempt to upgrade existing 12.4-STABLE to 13.2-STABLE
freebsd-update -r 13.2-STABLE upgrade

CONSOLE RESPONSE: "src component not installed, skipped freebsd-update: Cannot upgrade from a version that is not a release using freebsd-update. Instead, freebsd can be directly upgraded by source or upgraded to a RELEASE/RELENG version prior to running freebsd-update."


Am I missing something?
Do I have to install the source files when installing the operating system to make this work?
Or,
???

 

[Erichans]

The FreeBSD versions and how (long) they are supported and released is different from Linux distributions, as you have noticed; it may take some time and effort (reading—o.a. the thread SirDice mentioned in message #11—& asking) to get into that.

When working with a clean -RELEASE install one doesn't normally lose an internet when installing new software with binary packages or building your own software from ports. If something has gone wrong one of your first options is to consult the FreeBSD Handbook and the relevant manual pages (the manual pages can be rather tough to read at first); if that doesn't help then try asking specific questions (see for example How To Ask Questions The Smart Way; Be precise and informative about your problem)

In working with and understanding FreeBSD, you've done various different versions of FreeBSD (12.4-RELEASE, 13.0-RELEASE, 13.1-RELEASE, 12-STABLE and perhaps even 13-STABLE), all in search of a version that has all you want and/or solves (all) your problems with your FreeBSD installation and installed software. Stick to one version for now and try to solve the problem(s) and ask questions; when you switch back and forth between various supported versions and even unsupported versions, it will be highly unlike that anyone will be able to effectively help you; and you yourself for that matter.

I (strongly) suggest that you try first working with 13.2-RELEASE; let me try to explain.

FreeBSD 12-STABLE and 13-STABLE are development branches (as a rule not to be used as a business/production environment); see the handbook: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/cutting-edge/#current-stable:

FreeBSD has two development branches: FreeBSD-CURRENT and FreeBSD-STABLE.
This section provides an explanation of each branch and its intended audience, as well as how to keep a system up-to-date with each respective branch.

Being a development branch, such as -STABLE, you cannot use freebsd-update for updating your FreeBSD installation; freebsd-update(8):

BINARY UPDATES AVAILABILITY
     Binary updates are	not available for every	single FreeBSD version and ar-
     chitecture.

     In	general, binary	updates	are available for ALPHA, BETA, RC, and RELEASE
     versions of FreeBSD, e.g.:
	   FreeBSD 13.1-ALPHA3
	   FreeBSD 13.1-BETA2
	   FreeBSD 13.1-RC1
	   FreeBSD 13.1-RELEASE
     They are not available for	branches such as PRERELEASE, STABLE, and CUR-
     RENT, e.g.:
	   FreeBSD 13.0-PRERELEASE
	   FreeBSD 13.1-STABLE
	   FreeBSD 14.0-CURRENT
[...]

Therefore, keeping a FreeBSD -STABLE version up-to-date (even for security patches) requires you to re-compile (re-build) your FreeBSD base-install from source: no simple binary updates for -STABLE. 26.5. Tracking a Development Branch has the details.

[...] Having to do a whole business-system upgrade every (approx.) 6 months if I used the minor point release model. Which is way too labor intensive.
[...]
But, the main problem is still:
I need an operating system for business use, without spending all my time in forced upgrades every 6 months.

To have, and keep, a supported FreeBSD installation you will have to switch to the next minor release at some point in time (not every 6 months). Upgrading to the next minor release (as in upgrading from 13.1-RELEASE to 13.2-RELEASE) is usually without problems (being fully informed beforehand by reading the relevant release notes is helpful and very much advised). Such administrative tasks come with the (FreeBSD) territory.

I'm curious where you got the information that a next minor release (within the same major release) happens about every 6 months (making it necessary to do a minor version upgrade). Looking at the reference list of earlier FreeBSD -RELEASE versions, now Unsupported FreeBSD Releases, I see that minor -RELEASE versions "last" about a full year.

 

[Dave-D]

In working with and understanding FreeBSD, you've done various different versions of FreeBSD (12.4-RELEASE, 13.0-RELEASE, 13.1-RELEASE, 12-STABLE and perhaps even 13-STABLE), all in search of of versions that has all you want and/or solves (all) your problems with your FreeBSD installation and installed software. Stick to one version for now and try to solve the problem(s) and ask questions; when you switch back and forth between various supported versions and even unsupported versions, it will be highly unlike that anyone will be able to effectively help you; and you yourself for that matter.

I'm only jumping between versions to try and figure out a way to do something like LTS in linux, as its stated in the manual, STABLE has 5 year support.
But apparently that will do me no good.

In the past I've always stuck to one version (for example 13.1-RELEASE was my most recent), to do my testing and to run production systems.
Only now I found after moving to 13.2-RELEASE) that I'm having problems, and since 13.1 is basically dead (can't even install without mismatch errors),
then I'm dead in the water. Problems here, or problems there. Take your pick. Going forward is fixable, going back is not an option.

I may have been off on the typical time to upgrade, perhaps it's a year (I only guessed 6 months), but still, I'm concerned about upgrading my whole business system every year, and all the issues that might attend an upgrade. If its really no big deal then so be it.

But that was not the case in my most recent upgrade from 13.1-RELEASE to 13.2-RELEASE.
So that is what raised the level of concern, and why it is that I'm looking into this while its a small problem,
with the hope that it doesn't become a large problem.

FreeBSD 12-STABLE and 13-STABLE are development branches (as a rule not to be used as a business/production environment); see the handbook: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/cutting-edge/#current-stable:

Exactly what I was thinking prior to the start of this thread, which is why I was using RELEASE

I've heard a lot of different answers in this thread so it looks like a lot of people are confused.

I'll have to look more into the manual,
but looks like my answer is to stick with RELEASE and upgrade when forced to.

If thats the case, I'm sure I'll get the same problems after a fresh install, so I'll have to post them in the forums and work to solve the problems.


Seems a lot of people don't understand the problem I'm trying to solve, which is
minimizing maintenance overhead and support-related issues in a large-scale business system.

 

[Eric A. Borisch]

But that was not the case in my most recent upgrade from 13.1-RELEASE to 13.2-RELEASE.
So that is what raised the level of concern, and why it is that I'm looking into this while its a small problem,
with the hope that it doesn't become a large problem.

Again, what did you run into updating to 13.2? Is this something others might have run into, or something we can collectively try to help fix?

-STABLE and -RELEASE are bit confusing, but that’s where we are. You want -RELEASE. I know it says the stable branch is supported for five years, but the actual supported artifacts are snapshots of the stable branch — these are the point releases. It’s a developer-speak user-speak impedance mismatch.

13.1 to 13.2 was 11 months, + 3 months so a 14 month cycle this time between point upgrades required.

The 13.* family has a five year support window, but you are expected to update to the latest point releases (within 3 months of release) as part of that to remain supported.

And again, that expectation of upgrading in the next three months is built on the expectation that point release upgrades have minimal if any impact to users — any anything that might be disruptive should be clearly called out in the release notes.

Which is why I again am asking what you ran into, as it is clearly that expectation which failed to be reality for you in some fashion.

You can’t have both up-to-date and never changing. Help us understand what happened with 13.2, and hopefully future updates won’t cause issues.

I will also wave the flag again for ZFS and boot-environment-backed upgrades. They can really save your bacon, and give you time to hash out anything that didn’t go perfectly.

 

[Jose]

Again, what did you run into updating to 13.2? Is this something others might have run into, or something we can collectively try to help fix?

He's probably a Pulseaudio victim. It's hard to tell because of the ingrained bad habits he's picked up through years of Windows use.

You can’t have both up-to-date and never changing. Help us understand what happened with 13.2, and hopefully future updates won’t cause issues.

This. He wants "...long-term support in the form of patches and security updates" and "without spending all my time in forced upgrades every 6 months." So an operating system that is unchanging, but has security patches applied to it regularly.

I suspect he's used to having to do "clean installs" whenever there's a problem. This was even recommended by Microsoft themselves during the Windows Vista disaster, and the "clean install" remains a serious habit of long-time Windows users.

So whenever anything goes wrong he goes Ripley on his system and nukes the install from orbit. The assumption is some update has borked things and needs to be rolled back to a pristine state by reinstalling from a known-good and unchanging CD-ROM.

Not that that is a bad assumption or course of action when dealing with Windows. But yeah, it's about the worst thing you can do with most other OSes.

 

[zirias@]

Having to do a whole business-system upgrade every (approx.) 6 months if I used the minor point release model. Which is way too labor intensive.

And .. how?

In reality, a minor upgrade is (with very few exceptions) the same procedure and "amount of work" like a patchlevel upgrade. As explained above, there will be no breaking changes either.

If you want "less work", it means stop upgrading the system at all. With all the drawbacks and security risks attached of course.

 

[YYY__]

This issue has caused turmoil in the past.

FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle

 

[CyberCr33p]

I just read https://wiki.debian.org/LTS to see how a Linux distribution handles LTS:

"Debian Long Term Support (LTS) is a project to extend the lifetime of all Debian stable releases to (at least) 5 years. Debian LTS is not handled by the Debian Security team, but by a separate group of volunteers and companies interested in making it a success."

Debian 10.0 was released on 6 July 2019, and the latest version is 10.13, released on 10 September 2022. Debian 10 will be EOLed on 30 June 2024.

FreeBSD 12.0 was released on 11 December 2018 (supported until 29 February 2020), 12.1 was released on 4 November 2019 (supported until 31 January 2021), 12.2 was released on 27 October 2020 (supported until 31 March 2022), 12.3 was released on 7 December 2021 (supported until 31 March 2023), and 12.4 was released on 5 December 2022 (supported until 31 December 2023).

So both Debian and FreeBSD offer 5 years of support for each major version.

 

[YYY__]

FreeBSD lifecycle is similar to OpenSUSE Leap.
Debian LTS is maintained by third parties for limited software and architectures.

Recent discussions:

Ask HN: Why does FreeBSD do Releases the way the do? | Hacker News

news.ycombinator.com

FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity and lifecycle (2012) | Hacker News

news.ycombinator.com

 

[yuripv79]

(not reading all the answers) Current release model is dictated purely by available resources. "Businesses" can't expect others to test/support everything for them without investing time/money (they could hire someone who would follow the development and make sure nothing critical breaks when it's time to upgrade, fix bugs critical to "business" use cases).

 

[Dave-D]

This. He wants "...long-term support in the form of patches and security updates" and "without spending all my time in forced upgrades every 6 months." So an operating system that is unchanging, but has security patches applied to it regularly.

I suspect he's used to having to do "clean installs" whenever there's a problem. This was even recommended by Microsoft themselves during the Windows Vista disaster, and the "clean install" remains a serious habit of long-time Windows users.

So whenever anything goes wrong he goes Ripley on his system and nukes the install from orbit. The assumption is some update has borked things and needs to be rolled back to a pristine state by reinstalling from a known-good and unchanging CD-ROM.

Not that that is a bad assumption or course of action when dealing with Windows. But yeah, it's about the worst thing you can do with most other OSes.

Wrong. TOTALLY wrong.

It's always dangerous to jump to conclusions.

I dumped Windows 15 years ago, as soon as I possibly could. I despise Windows. I then ran various flavors of linux until 2 years ago, it was the linux system-d fiasco that proved to be the final straw, which in turn led me to FreeBSD.

I was a computer consultant for small businesses. I must know something.

I know when to nuke a system and start over, and when to attempt a repair.

I suggest that you ask questions before you jump to conclusions based on your ignorance, then condemn all those involved.
.

 

[Dave-D]

(not reading all the answers) Current release model is dictated purely by available resources. "Businesses" can't expect others to test/support everything for them without investing time/money (they could hire someone who would follow the development and make sure nothing critical breaks when it's time to upgrade, fix bugs critical to "business" use cases).

Just trying to figure what I'm up against.

Don't expect a no-effort computer system.

Be realistic, please.

Everything in business takes resources.
Those who are wise will plan accordingly.
.

 

[Dave-D]

Again, what did you run into updating to 13.2? Is this something others might have run into, or something we can collectively try to help fix?

Okay, so I'll tell you what I ran into, and what I now believe to be the cause of it.

1. Was running FreeBSD 13.1-RELEASE until support expired, tried to install it, ended up with version mismatches, not usable.
2. Did a CLEAN install of FreeBSD 13.2-RELEASE, ran into problems, as follows:
--> Sound and Video worked only on Youtube, nowhere else, including Rumble or any site with an embedded Rumble-linked video.
--> Flaky internet, but not sure about the source, could have been a coincidence, AT&T issue, etc.
--> Installed Calligra office suite. Totally broke my internet connection, refused to connect no matter what I did. Maybe corrupted drivers, who knows...
--> Files created with OpenOffice, when trying to copy the file, said "Unknown file type."

Q.) What caused all of this?
A.) I have no idea.

SOLUTION:
Last night I did a clean install of FreeBSD 13.2-RELEASE, everything works now.

POSSIBLE CAUSES:
1. I discovered that I had a bad "K" key on the keyboard, sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Driver issue? Likely not. Keyboard issue? Likely.
2. Possibly messed up a configuration file because of either bad keyboard "K" key, and/or because, after installing video driver, the console text
becomes so small its hard to read, and therefore easier to make mistakes.
3. Who knows. Maybe it was a bad day for me, maybe a bad day for my computer, sometimes you never do find the reason something like this happened.
You fix the problem if possible, and move on.

SO..

Problem solved.
Points taken.
Lessons learned.
I know which direction to take, and approximately what to expect.

 

[Dave-D]

In reality, a minor upgrade is (with very few exceptions) the same procedure and "amount of work" like a patchlevel upgrade. As explained above, there will be no breaking changes either.

If you want "less work", it means stop upgrading the system at all. With all the drawbacks and security risks attached of course.

Something else I hadn't thought about.

I believe the operating and software portions are updated / upgraded separately in FreeBSD, correct?

If true, then the Point release upgrades should only affect the operating system portion, not the installed softare, or "userland" I believe it was called?

My main concerns were:
1. An update breaking my system, not being able to go back to the previous point release, since (if you wait to long) its basically non-functional.
2. An update updating my installed software (for example PostgreSQL database server) when I did not want to upgrade the version of PostgreSQL database server,
I would rather chose to update the software programs when I want to, rather than being forced to, then running into problems.

If this is all true, and like someone said in this thread, the 5-year STABLE has an unchanging code-base, so the installed software should continue to work over those 5 years,
then this is far less of an issue that originally anticipated.

Comments?

 

[Eric A. Borisch]

Problem solved.
Points taken.
Lessons learned.
I know which direction to take, and approximately what to expect.

Glad to hear it. Heisenbugs (that go away when you look for them) are truly frustrating.

I hope your continuing experience is smooth. And check out boot environments if you have the time.

 

[sidetone]

A few people asked what the specific problem was, and that was ignored. It sounded like

Current release model is dictated purely by available resources. "Businesses" can't expect others to test/support everything for them without investing time/money (they could hire someone who would follow the development and make sure nothing critical breaks when it's time to upgrade, fix bugs critical to "business" use cases).

Even then, you say that's not the case, that's how it sounded throughout this thread. I don't think you've read the other threads or links, which some point out that minor release upgrades aren't that bad, and don't require a full reinstall.

If you're doing business in software, more is expected to know how to run an operating system and troubleshoot a specific problem. At least, acknowledge or not ignore useful points which people have said, whether in a business or not business capacity.

The problem was within the latest production release, and not the lifespan of it itself. You don't give information, and when someone suggests it might be because of pulse audio, you tell them they're wrong. Then when you ask for help, you need to find the problem and listen to when people tell you that.

 

[Dave-D]

This issue has caused turmoil in the past.

FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle

EXACTLY.

EVERYONE please read that post.

A WIDENING GAP BETWEEN DEVELOPERS AND CONSUMERS.

Also called "losing touch with reality."

I noticed this problem almost constantly during my years of being a computer consultant to small business.

=> Software developers who want to be left alone (isolated) so they can write code to control a world they do not understand. This disconnect marks the beginning of the end. Developers continue on in their "make believe" world, while consumers find just more junk software that misses the mark, but pleases those who made it.
=> Businesses who become "institutionalized" and forget the customers that made them successful in the first place. This marks the beginning of the end.

Basically, forgetting your purpose.

THIS, is exactly what I sensed, and feared the most, but did not directly say it.
This is exactly why I was so upset at the beginning of this post.
I LOVE FreeBSD, its the first time I could ever say that about any operating system, period.
I thought I was "losing" this love, and fast.
I thought pure insanity had entered the door.

It is the consumers who best understand reality, the day-to-day pulse of life
It is the developers who best understand writing code to help consumers deal with that reality.
BOTH must help and understand each other.

We all have to constantly remember this point and guard against it, or else its the beginning of the end for FreeBSD.

 

[patmaddox]

First, I can empathize with the confusion around RELEASE / STABLE / CURRENT naming. Based on your posts here, I strongly recommend you stick to RELEASE and forget that STABLE and CURRENT are even a thing. RELEASE is the most straightforward path - you download an installer and upgrade with freebsd-update(8). If you switch to STABLE, you lose that path (as you've seen).

Some other notes, before I get into specific quotes from posts in this thread:

It's possible that FreeBSD is not suitable for you.

You made a blanket statement that it's not suitable for business use, which is certainly not the case. But, maybe it doesn't meet your needs. So it's probably worth making a prioritized list of what you want, and seeing how FreeBSD compares to other alternatives.

As an example, Canonical pays a large team of developers to maintain Ubuntu LTS branches. That means that the OS and packages get security updates, and that's it. It's extremely stable, in the sense that application versions don't change.

FreeBSD doesn't have that. FreeBSD has a RELEASE line for the operating system, with patch levels and minor versions representing updates. There is some commercial support, by way of FreeBSD foundation and companies sponsoring work, but nothing like Canonical. Ports are managed by volunteers, and so are kept up-to-date on the whims / availability of those volunteers.

You might ask if you are okay with using an operating system on a volunteer effort, or if you would prefer a commercial company dedicated to the project. One benefit that the commercial effort provides is LTS versions, which is simply not available in the same form in FreeBSD. That said, my experience is that FreeBSD itself is generally stable, and so there's not as compelling a need to have an LTS version.

I cannot be forced to upgrade a whole business system every 6 months to stay with the one supported release, which becomes unsupported within 3 months following the next point release.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "upgrade a whole business system." You either stay up to date and get security / stability fixes and new functionality, or you don't. LTS models are also upgrades. Minor version updates (e.g. 13.1 -> 13.2) are exactly as named - minor - and are the closest thing to the LTS model in other OSes.

In short, if you are unwilling to upgrade 13.1 to 13.2 within 3 months of 13.2 release, then FreeBSD may not be for you. Though if you're interested in FreeBSD, you may want to understand exactly what 13.1 to 13.2 means, and see whether your objections to doing that upgrade are warranted.

13.1 was released on 5/16/22, 13.2 on 4/11/23 - so that's 11 months, not 6. If you want a sense of how often you should run freebsd-update(8) to receive patch-level (aka security) updates, see the Security Advisories page. Here's the 13.1 patch level schedule:

• 8/9/22 - p1
• 8/30/22 - p2
• 11/16/22 - p4 (I guess there was no p3?)
• 11/29/22 - p5
• 2/8/23 - p6
• 2/16/23 - p7
• 6/21/23 - p8
• 8/1/23 - p9

Of course, not all patch levels may be necessary for your use case. But if you want to keep things simple, and stay up to date, then that's what you would have done with 13.1.

--> Having to do a whole business-system upgrade every (approx.) 6 months if I used the minor point release model. Which is way too labor intensive. As a business, I need something with long-term support in the form of patches and security updates. I now understand that to be the "STABLE" releases. The whole thing was confusing to me.

You misunderstand. STABLE is the development precursor to RELEASE. 13.2 is simply an officially released version of the STABLE branch. If you used STABLE, you would probably be upgrading more frequently - and doing so by building from source - which is at odds with your stated objectives.

That's what I thought too.
Looks like we are both wrong.

RELEASE is only supported up to 3 months after the next release becomes available.
Which puts me in a perpetual have-to-upgrade-the-whole-business-system-every-six-months---yet-again---type of cycle.
Not good for business.

Exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

Looks like a lot of people are confused about this. . .

Assuming you're on RELEASE, this is the procedure for staying up to date as security patches come out. This is the procedure for minor version upgrades. That's the most stable path, and if it's acceptable to you, then great. If it's not acceptable to you, then you know that FreeBSD isn't for you.

I understand the need to have stability for business machines. So perhaps you could make one exploratory workstation, work with it for a year or so to learn how it works and evaluate whether it meets your needs.

 

[Dave-D]

Perhaps we should get back to the root of the issue (it seems) - what issues are you running into on 13.2?

You shouldn’t be running into anything major going from 13.1 to 13.2. As always, updating with boot environments is always a good choice in case you find some corner case others have not.

I just posted what I ran into.

I'll experiment with boot environments.

I'm learning...

Thanks to everyone, Problem solved.

 

[patmaddox]

I believe the operating and software portions are updated / upgraded separately in FreeBSD, correct?

If true, then the Point release upgrades should only affect the operating system portion, not the installed softare, or "userland" I believe it was called?

My main concerns were:
1. An update breaking my system, not being able to go back to the previous point release, since (if you wait to long) its basically non-functional.
2. An update updating my installed software (for example PostgreSQL database server) when I did not want to upgrade the version of PostgreSQL database server.

Correct, point release upgrades only affect the operating system version. They do not modify any third-party software, which is largely installed via ports / packages.

Generally speaking, minor version updates do not lead to packages breaking. That's not a guarantee though - kernel modules may need to be reinstalled as a result of minor version updates.

Here's how I see it: FreeBSD as a complete operating system means that I am 99.9% likely to be able to boot into single user mode to fix any issues if I need to. I never need to, but it's an option if I do. It doesn't mean that all of the third-party software will always work without issues. My experience is that FreeBSD release + latest ports tree works really, really well.

If this is all true, and like someone said in this thread, the 5-year STABLE has an unchanging code-base, so the installed software should continue to work over those 5 years, then this is far less of an issue that originally anticipated.

This is incorrect, as you can see from the stable/13 commit log. I described the relationship between STABLE and RELEASE in an earlier post.

An update updating my installed software (for example PostgreSQL database server) when I did not want to upgrade the version of PostgreSQL database server.

Certain applications, like postgresql, let you choose the major version - 9.5, 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. The port is then kept up to date with minor / patch versions.

I would rather chose to update the software programs when I want to, rather than being forced to, then running into problems.

The simplest way to do this is run pkg-update(8) and pkg-ugrade(8) when you want to update the software. As described earlier, it will update to whatever version the maintainer has set. If you want more control than that, you can maintain a custom ports tree with poudriere.

 

[Eric A. Borisch]

EXACTLY.

EVERYONE please read that post.

The current release strategy was an attempt (in large part) to address those points. It’s the balance that was reached at the time considering stability, progress, and resources. (The old “good, fast, cheap” adage maps fairly well.)

Again, point releases should have minimal disruption, and well documented in the release notes. Boot environments are a great way to upgrade and test rapidly; if you find something that is disruptive in the point release, share it as it was likely not intended, and reboot into the old BE.

Patch releases (13.2-p2) should have almost no disruption, unless there is a security issue being addressed; see for example the pam_krb5-related updates recently.