From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 9 13:35:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3128B16A4CE for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal1.es.net (postal1.es.net [198.128.3.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4ED43D41 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:35:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal1.es.net (Postal Node 1) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:35:38 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id EECE75D07; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:35:36 -0700 (PDT) To: Nathan Seven In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:14:07 PDT." <20040409191407.11538.qmail@web13901.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:35:36 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20040409203537.EECE75D07@ptavv.es.net> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: avleeuwen@piwebs.com cc: Atte Peltomaki Subject: Re: Future of FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:35:39 -0000 > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:14:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Nathan Seven > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > > --- Nathan Seven wrote: > > >-- Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > > > On Friday 09 April 2004 00:45, Atte Peltomaki > > wrote: > > > > Hello FreeBSD users and developers! > > > > > > > > As an active FreeBSD user, I'm ever so > > interested > > > about the future > > > > plans of FreeBSD and direction of developement. > > > Many of the features > > > > that 5.x taunts are very impressive. But as of > > > late I have been > > > > increasingly worried about the direction (or, > > lack > > > of direction) things > > > > have been going. > > > > > This looks like a troll, and if it isn't, it > > doesn't > > > belong on this mailing > > > list. Please don't feed the trolls. > > > > Hmmm- troll or no, I don't see it as a particularly > > invalid question... > > I have some of the same concerns myself- > > Is there a specific "guidance" or "direction" list > > that I should be subscribed to? > > If not, this *would* be the proper place- no? > > Errr nevermind- I thought that the above was the > entirety of the "troll" post ( I saw the rest- troll > indeed). > > Anyway, I mentioned *I* had some of the same > questions, I feel like I should clarify them- > My questions have been in the management of the 5.x > RELEASES- it's been quite some time since 5.0, and the > 5.x series is still touted as "scary experimental > stuff that will break"- > I just think that's really hurt the adoption of it- > For basic serverside stuff, bits like ACPI and sound > aren't needed at all- > Perhaps once the scheduling and pthread stuff has been > solidified, a "stable base" release should be made? > Meaning that the release as a whole should still be > considered unstable, but using the as-shipped "stable" > kernel config, things should be nice and solid? > > Anyway, just my 2 cents- I don't need a response or > anything, just making my thoguhts known. On the vast majority of systems, V5 is very stable, but there are still too many problems to declare it STABLE. The assumption that servers don't need ACPI is simply untrue. More and more newer BIOSes simply will not boot without ACPI. Since ACPI takes over the functions of APM, too often people assume that it does nothing else, when it may well do a great many more things, many well outside the bounds of power management and essential to system operation. And ACPI support is now pretty good, especially for servers. Laptops still see an assortment of issues with suspend/resume and PCMCIA, although many of these have been resolved recently and some older boxes either lack ACPI or have one so broken that it is useless. Most of those do fine with nothing or APM, though. The new thread libraries are getting very good and I have not used the old library for some time and have had no problems as a result, although the transition was a bit rough. I understand that others have had more problems than I have had, though. I only have three system running CURRENT, 2 desktops and my laptop. The number of things needed before V5 is ready to be given a STABLE label is now getting small, especially on UP i386 platforms. There are more issues on other equipment, though. I suspect 5-STABLE will arrive before the end of summer and, perhaps, long before. I'm not a part of the release process, but I see no reason for a "stable base" release or anything but a true stable. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634