Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:14:47 -0800 From: Danny Howard <dannyman@toldme.com> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems Message-ID: <20051110181447.GC23887@ratchet.nebcorp.com> In-Reply-To: <43738D14.9030006@freebsd.org> References: <20051110012313.GB22149@mind.net> <54db43990511091749h7b7c0753vbf7adbce94eff6cc@mail.gmail.com> <20051110081424.GA46702@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051110180048.GB23887@ratchet.nebcorp.com> <43738D14.9030006@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:10:28AM -0800, Colin Percival wrote: > Danny Howard wrote: > > So ... I am genuinely curious ... if 6.0 is basically 5.4 plus > > improvements, why isn't it called 5.5? > > FreeBSD numbers releases based on compatibility, not based on > features. You can take programs compiled for FreeBSD 5.3 (the > first release from the 5-stable branch) and run them on FreeBSD > 5.4 and know that they will all work; but if you want to run > them on FreeBSD 6.0, you might need to recompile them. So, the 6.0 denotes some note-worthy realignment of the symbol table or such. Thank you for an excellent answer, Colin. Some of us were secretly worried that FreeBSD was catching a case of the Sun Marketing. :) Cheers, -danny -- http://dannyman.toldme.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051110181447.GC23887>