T. Valent wrote:
quoted text
> Folks, yes, I appreciate your attempt to help a lot. And I really am on
> your side if we're talking about "normal" machines.
> 
> However, obviously nobody believes me when I say "For us there is no
> reason to update to newer versions of OpenBSD yet. On the contrary,
> maintenance is a lot easier for us if we try to keep all systems on the
> same versions for as long as possible." 

you are correct, since you outright state a reason: hardware
compatibility.

Just as you will have difficulty installing Windows 2000 or XP on
modern hardware, old versions of OpenBSD will have difficulty on new
hardware.  Yes, OpenBSD has many design decisions that force the issue
a lot faster than Windows, but that's the game you have chosen to play.

I won't try to tell you how much better 4.7 is than 4.3, I'll grant
you that for your application, maybe it Just The Same.  But the rules
of the game with OpenBSD are "thou shall keep up-to-date".

With Windows, Solaris or Linux, you hunt down drivers when new
hardware comes out.  OpenBSD makes you do some work, too -- upgrade to
a new release.  My experience has been that upgrading is easier than
hunting down the new drivers.

The great fantasy of many people in the IT world is lots of identical
hardware and software.  Sorry, this is completely unrealistic, or at
least completely unhealthy, in the big picture.

New hardware happens.
New software happens.
Special needs happen.
Growth happens.

If your business is growing, you will be needing to add new hardware
and software in the future, and odds are, it won't be the same as what
you have now.  That needs to be in your long-term plans.  If your
business isn't growing, you have other problems...

When you design your solutions, this is part of a good design
solution: what happens in a year from now when we need to add to the
system...and the old hardware is no longer available?

I've also had the "privilege" of taking over support of old systems
that no one quite understood and everyone is terrified of replacing or
rebuilding because all the people that set it up originally are now
elsewhere.  The "keeping it up-to-date" is something I've become a big
believer in, because the alternative is to have companies running on
ten year old applications that no one really understands, meaning they
can never be replaced in a relatively pain-free way.  The routine,
scheduled upgrade is a great re-orientation process, an opportunity to
 verify your knowledge diversity and documentation.

Nick.