From owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 05:23:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A264D16A4CE for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:23:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.tiadon.com (SMTP.tiadon.com [69.27.132.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B3743D39 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:23:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kdk@daleco.biz) Received: from [69.27.131.0] ([69.27.131.0]) by ns1.tiadon.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:21:42 -0600 Message-ID: <41BFCA74.3090206@daleco.biz> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:24:04 -0600 From: "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org References: <003b01c4e19c$c1a54c80$0200a8c0@PANASONIULSWMR> <41BE8303.5060401@nbritton.org> <008d01c4e1a7$e3b8e5b0$0200a8c0@PANASONIULSWMR> <41BEC5A1.2040302@nbritton.org> <20041214134101.6dc59ff6@agnes.myhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20041214134101.6dc59ff6@agnes.myhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2004 05:21:46.0087 (UTC) FILETIME=[F86FD770:01C4E265] Subject: Re: RELENG_5 vs. RELENG_5_3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Gathering place for new users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:23:46 -0000 Lute Mullenix wrote: >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 04:51:13 -0600 >Nikolas Britton insisted: > >{trimmed for space} > > >>YES!, Its still a tad ruff around the edges but you have to remember >>that FreeBSD (and the other BSDs) has very high standards when it comes >>to system stability, uptime is measured in years not months or days, so >>if they say its ready for production use then it is, also, FreeBSD 5.x >>as a chicken and the egg problem, it needs more people using it to work >>out those ruff edges, but everyone "thinks" it not "ready" so they go >>with 4.x thus adding to problem. Being that FreeBSD 5 is already at 5.3 >>were sorta at the now or never point, its time for everyone to just grin >>and bear it so we can get this show on the road. >> >>If you don't believe me that FreeBSD works like "running water" then >>have a look at this, all 50 spots are held by *BSD: >>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html >> >> > >I have to agree, I have been running 5.3 since it was RELEASEd, and it's >been totally stable, the only real complaint is, that I am having some >problems with port builds. The main one being the panel on xfce4, (sigh) >my preferred desk top. But sound worked right out of the box, and after a >bit of wrestling got Xorg up and running. The only time it's been down has >been for the required reboot for the couple of security updates it's had >so far. > >It would be good if people who put more demands on the OS than I do would >use it so any other quirks can be rooted out. In the mean time I will just >use blackbox and keep hoping for the panel on xfce4 to get fixed. On the >other hand I have no intention of ditching FBSD or regressing to an >earlier version. It's working and I can live with it knowing there are >smarter people than me out there making it work better. > > Let's remember that -STABLE implies not system stability (as Nick says, that's pretty much a 'given'), but a stable *codebase*. 5.X has been running great for me since August 2003; but those of us who adopted 5.X prior to the end of July had to rebuild a big bunch of stuff when the new GCC was added to the system. That's "unstable" ... something came into the source tree that broke a whole bunch of other stuff. Any committer who does something like that in RELENG_5, now that it's been proclaimed -STABLE, is quite likely to be crucified or smothered in penguin feathers or sold to Microsoft or something .... Kevin Kinsey