Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:04:26 -0800 From: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <CAOjFWZ5tgi4dc3uR--%2BetJ1osSmE0kZPpUMx87MdTaj2HjL_VQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just a note before everyone goes off on wonderful things were with FreeBSD 4.x going all the way to 4.11: 4.x is an anomoly in the history of FreeBSD major versions, being the only release with more than 4? 5? minor releases. There were only a couple minor versions of 1.x; there were only a couple of minor versions of 2.x; there were only a couple minor versions of 3.x; and so on through to 8.x. IOW, the 'glory days before 5.0' is really no different than the days since 5.0. Looking at the complete history of FreeBSD releases, 4.x is the outlier that needs to be discarded for the stats to make sense. (Or something like that, I've failed stats 3 times now.) :) When I started with FreeBSD, there were two production releases available: 2.2.something and 3.1. They even came in the same box set from Walnut Creek? Forget where I ordered them online now. Shortly after, 4.0 was released, but 3.x was stil developped. The only difference between pre-5 and post-5 is the switch from feature-based releases that could take years to develop, to time-based releases that ship at mostly-regular times, with whatever features are ready. The latter is actually more useful, as you can plan ahead of time as you know the general timeframes between major versions. So, let's keep a little perspective in the discussion, and not ignore the past history of FreeBSD releases. Cheers, Freddie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOjFWZ5tgi4dc3uR--%2BetJ1osSmE0kZPpUMx87MdTaj2HjL_VQ>