From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Jun 2 14:48: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk [193.237.89.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD9B14BEF for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk) Received: (from nik@localhost) by nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) id TAA55915; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:23:54 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from nik) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:23:53 +0100 From: Nik Clayton To: "Daniel O'Connor" Cc: Kris Kennaway , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD & X Message-ID: <19990602192352.A55420@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: ; from Daniel O'Connor on Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 01:43:08PM +0930 Organization: Nik at home, where there's nothing going on Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 01:43:08PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On 02-Jun-99 Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > Yes, its pretty crashy :( > > Even on Linux, I hear. The 1.0 release apparently was only meant to signify > > the API freeze, not code stabilization. I gather there was quite a bit of > > release pressure coming from folks like RedHat.. > > Ugh.. damn stupid linux development model at work :( That would be the same sort of development model that led us to release 3.2 in time for Usenix, right, and why our release schedules tend (or are intended to) fit in quite nicely with WCs CD-ROM release requirements? Yeah, thought so. We shouldn't be bitching about the 'competition' when we do the same things ourselves. N -- [intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed, non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs the links. -- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message