From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 18 12:08:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA26335 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA26313 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dialup-usr11.etinc.com (dialup-usr11.etinc.com [204.141.95.132]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA04796; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:12:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970418150347.00b0b604@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:03:54 -0400 To: Terry Lambert , nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) From: dennis Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 09:57 AM 4/18/97 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: >> Uhh, yeah. You want stability, then you can't have 'brand-new' >> features. You can't have it both ways. >> >> To put it into a scenario you might understand. >> >> : I want to beta-test your newest product before it's released >> : publically, but it better be *rock* solid since I need your latest >> : driver to handle the huge network loads I'm using. And, I'll complain >> : if it makes my machine unstable. > >That looks like what he actually wants, as opposed to what he says >he thinks he wants. > >Why can't the latest driver work in a rock solid system, or why >can't a rock solid driver work in the latest system? A beta user >accepts some risk, but they shouldn't have to risk everything. > No..its more like..why can't the new features be smoothly integrated into the existing release product without having to create an entirely new animal. db