From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Oct 15 17:28:45 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA20898
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 17:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net ([198.70.144.127])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA20892
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 17:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) id TAA06629; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:28:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199610160028.TAA06629@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:28:04 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jdw@wwwi.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <14388.845423958@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Oct 15, 96 04:59:18 pm
Reply-To: dyson@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> > It's just that when someone says "I have a problem," and the answer is
> > "We fixed that in the version you shouldn't use."  That is like saying
> > "Have this yummy cupcake," and then putting the cupcake behind 2 inches
> > of plexiglass with "WARNING: hard hat area; experts only" painted on it.
> 
> This is a valid point, and I'll agree with you that some folks
> probably should be a little *less* willing to suggest running 2.2 to
> anyone who comes forward with a problem which we know we've fixed in
> the -current branch.  I do it myself, and it's damn easy to forget
> this when one's perspective of -current is so much different than the
> "party line" being expressed on the web pages.
> 
I am one of the worst offenders at making 2.2-current not safe to use :-),
but note that at work, I have NO control over which version of FreeBSD
that we are using and only a little influence.  In my production environment
at work, they won't even think about touching -current, and stick with
2.1.x+patches.  The reason isn't that they can't fix it (I can fix
almost any problem that I can reproduce.)  It is that they don't want
to spend resources (me) keeping up with the latest -current, simple as that.
So, I am "punished" having to use 2.1.5 at work, when I use U**X, but
I also don't get hassled all of the time about something that I broke
with my other, FreeBSD hat on :-).  I believe that -current is okay to use
in production, but it means that the user has to manage his/her own
release engineering and be much more consious of quality control issues.
In essence, I think that FreeBSD-current is more expensive to run, and
for some people the generally improved operation of the system justifies
the cost.

I guess that I am just letting you know that I have the same problem that
alot of users of 2.1.x do...  2.1.x is good, but 2.2 (or whatever) will be
significantly better (and can't wait to use it at work :-))...

John
dyson@freebsd.org