From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 10 08:14:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3639E16A41F for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:14:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BBA43D49 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:14:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29AA1A3C25; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E001751516; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 03:14:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 03:14:25 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: Bob Johnson Message-ID: <20051110081424.GA46702@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20051110012313.GB22149@mind.net> <54db43990511091749h7b7c0753vbf7adbce94eff6cc@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54db43990511091749h7b7c0753vbf7adbce94eff6cc@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: John Fox , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:14:28 -0000 --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 08:49:29PM -0500, Bob Johnson wrote: > On 11/9/05, John Fox wrote: > > I remember back a while when 5.x had been recently released > > as STABLE and the conventional wisdom said not to use it in > > production until the 5.3 release. > > > > Is there any such conventional wisdom as regards 6.x? >=20 > 5.0 introduced a lot of new features and replaced some major > components, so the warning was that it would take longer than normal > to reach a level of stability suitable for critical systems. >=20 > As I understand it, 6.0 is primarily concentrating on improving some > of the major stuff introduced in 5.x, and shouldn't take nearly as > long to become a "stable" platform. Even so, conventional wisdom > generally warns against using any X.0 release for critical > applications, but that depends on your definition of "critical" and > your level of tolerance for excitement. You really shouldn't think of 6.0 as "like a usual .0 release, so handle with care", but more like "5.4 plus extra optimization and stability fixes". We spent nearly 6 months during the release cycle on stress-testing and fixing stability bugs, and that hard work resulted in a lot of fixes to long-standing bugs that have existed since FreeBSD 5.x. In addition to the improved stability, performance is much better than 5.4 in several areas. Naturally there may be some regressions, but in the average case 6.0 seems to be an outstanding release of FreeBSD no matter what version number you give it. Kris --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDcwFfWry0BWjoQKURAtP4AKCZO6dDnJnRX9+mKR9pan4afQ5y9QCfWjrQ SxwwwZtFuKWNXi2IF/7jnV8= =MqHV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7--