From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 17 14: 6:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from zed.ludd.luth.se (zed.ludd.luth.se [130.240.16.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033DC15316 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:06:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pantzer@speedy.ludd.luth.se) Received: from speedy.ludd.luth.se (pantzer@speedy.ludd.luth.se [130.240.16.164]) by zed.ludd.luth.se (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA02646; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:05:49 +0100 Message-Id: <199903172205.XAA02646@zed.ludd.luth.se> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.1 12/23/97 To: Keith Woodman Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusion In-Reply-To: Message from Keith Woodman of "Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:25:44 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:05:37 +0100 From: Mattias Pantzare Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > After following the discussion regarding the releases of product. > I am left , wondering what is considered a sound product= to > install on a machine. The frequency of CD releases leaves me wondering.= > "well what was wrong in the last version they said was the next > kewlest thing". Was it hyped to much? was it a lie? And what is wrong w= ith > a simple patch? I have machines running on 3.0 now that I am informed I know what is wrong with a simple patch, they never are simple. It takes= a = lot or resources to make patches. > should be upgraded to 3.1 ASAP. And 3.0 given the length of time it > has been out, would be considered NEW. I just would like to have a syst= em > that I can install, and keep alive for a good period of time without ev= ery > person in every group answering my questions with "You need to upgrade > to the newest release". That is all fine and dandy for people that want= = > to track things closely. But, most people that use FreeBSD don't do > that. We are like any other consumer. Just wanting a product that will > withstand more than 3 months time. And is still supported on the site t= o > some extent. = I am sorry, but I have to quote the announcment for 3.0: This release is primarily aimed at developers and early-adopters, though many ISPs have reported good results when using it in production (not tha= t we recommend this to any but the most highly skilled). See the release no= tes for more information. This is why you should upgrade to 3.1. > Come to find out, after installing my systems via ftp. I can't get > a 3.0 CD anyplace. I called cdrom.com and they said they stoped carryin= g > it as soon as 3.1 came out. This leaves people like me hanging out to d= ry > and wondering why it is this way. And, I am either blind or correct in > saying that 3.0-RELEASE is not on the ftp.freebsd.com server any more. > This to a consumer is very disheartening. It's like buying a car and be= ing > told a month later that "it's not all that was advertised the month > before. And oh by the way. We're not carrying that model anymore". Oh? That is normal. Why would they manufacture an older model if the newe= r is = better? People usualy by the later model. I have to ask, why do you need the 3.0 CD, why won't 3.1 do? > My question to anyone that would care to answer is this. > Is it advisable to upgrade my SMP machines that are running 3.0 to 3.1 = or > do I wait for what is being called the fix for 3.1, 3.2 ? If you don't have any problems there is no reason to upgrade. If you have= = problems then you upgrade. You can upgrade to the version of the day if y= ou = wish, it realy is up to you. There will allways be bugfixes and you can't= have = the latest version att all times. > Sorry if I ticked anyone off or spoke out of turn. Just would like some= > stability in my OS of choice. I can't imagine what it must be like for > people even greener then me. That is why 2.2.8 still is on the ftp sites. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message