From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan  6 11:22:26 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 149C016A4CE; Tue,  6 Jan 2004 11:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EEEEC43D3F; Tue,  6 Jan 2004 11:22:24 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i06JMD7E014616;
	Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:22:18 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200401061922.i06JMD7E014616@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:22:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: brett@lariat.org
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040105134236.03b51cc0@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
cc: Randall.Munden@umb.com
cc: chris@randomcamel.net
cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:22:26 -0000

On  5 Jan, Brett Glass wrote:

> It's probably one of the Slashdot "BSD is dead" trolls. The fact is, though,
> that there ARE things about FreeBSD that could stand improvement. These
> days, when I build a box, I am torn between using FreeBSD 5.x -- which is
> not ready for prime time but is at least being worked on actively -- and
> using 4.9, which isn't as stable as it should be because the developers
> broke the cardinal rule of making radical changes to -STABLE. This *is*
> a real issue for those of us who are admins.

The worst breakage of 4-STABLE in recent memory was the PAE commit,
which I got the impression was driven by end-user demand.  Probably
folks who had expensive systems with > 4GB of RAM who wanted to be able
to run 4-STABLE production systems and make use of all that RAM right
now and not wait for 5.x to become production-worthy.