From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Jul 15 09:54:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA22804 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway.pnu.com (gateway.upj.com [146.240.240.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA22787; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:54:24 -0700 (PDT) From: ALHACK@am.pnu.com Received: from pw13mg.am.pnu.com (pw14mg.am.pnu.com) by gateway.pnu.com with SMTP id AA02779 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0); Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:42:51 -0400 Received: from ccMail by pw13mg.am.pnu.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 1ea74950; Mon, 15 Jul 96 12:40:53 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:34:42 -0400 Message-Id: <1ea74950@am.pnu.com> Subject: Re[2]: FreeBSD vs. Caldera Linux To: terry@lambert.org, James Raynard Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, gpalmer@freebsd.org, questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Thank you everyone for the answers and including me in the discussion. Art ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Caldera Linux Author: James Raynard at INTERNET Date: 07/09/96 02:29 PM > > Lots. Maybe 'touched' was a poor word. Many files were 'fixed' in the > > 2.1 -> 2.1.5 upgrade, but very few new features were added, and a couple > > of them shouldn't have been (/dev/random stuff). The ELF stuff is *new* > > code, and as such doesn't fit the bill for the 'target' of the stable > > release. > > OK, I can accept this. It means that there is really little value > in 2.1.5R vs. 2.1R (from my personal point of view, anyway), but it > is a solid, rational position. There probably isn't much of interest to kernel hackers in 2.1.5 - it's aimed mainly at users who want to have existing bugs fixed without new ones being introduced at the same time :-) > > > I don't think a "weight of printout" argument is really applicable in > > > this case. > > > > It certainly is. The 'weight of printout' implies that the code is both > > new *and* fairly untested on a large scale. > > No, it implies that the "number of files touched" is an arbiter of > whether or not a change is a good one or not. The question is one of stability, not of value judgments. I don't believe anyone is arguing that large changes are automatically bad, just that it takes longer for them to settle down sufficiently to be made available in a release. -- James Raynard, Edinburgh, Scotland james@jraynard.demon.co.uk http://www.freebsd.org/~jraynard/