From owner-freebsd-advocacy Wed Mar 3 20:31:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B404814EFA for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:31:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id NAA09561; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:31:15 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <36DDECE8.87906C49@newsguy.com> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 11:16:08 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd vs. linux and NT chart References: <99Mar2.114516est.113920@pandora.isinet.com> <4.1.19990302132445.040f6d40@localhost> <4.1.19990302184058.00c4a1c0@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brett Glass wrote: > > If I upgrade machines to 3.1-RELEASE, I know I'll have major work > to do rewriting maintenance scripts, etc. because things like the utmp > format have changed. This means downtime for the client. Also, since > 3.0-RELEASE was explicitly NOT for production machines, the earliest > version I will install on ANY production machine will be 3.2-RELEASE > (and only then with special permission from the client, because our > general policy is to wait for the third "real" release of anything > before relying on it for mission-critical functions). > > Sorry to sound so utterly conservative, but that's 'cause we are. If so, why do you insist on having the latest release of whatever there is in the ports? -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "FreeBSD is Yoda, Linux is Luke Skywalker." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message