From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 28 6:47:25 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from infos1.casaccia.enea.it (INFOS1.casaccia.enea.it [192.107.71.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5182A37BF2E for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:47:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from poggif@casaccia.enea.it) Received: from studi7106 (STUDI7106.casaccia.enea.it [192.107.77.106]) by infos1.casaccia.enea.it (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA20494; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:40:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000328154001.00916840@infos1.casaccia.enea.it> X-Sender: poggif@infos1.casaccia.enea.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:40:01 +0200 To: Martin Cracauer From: Fabrizio Poggi Subject: Re: Let 3.x die ASAP? Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20000328113633.A28085@cons.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 11.36 28/03/00 +0200, you wrote: >A bit of a controvesical question, for sure. ... >I am so impressed with the results of upgrading my more important >machines to 4.0 or 4-stable that I could imagine not to produce any >more 3.x releases. ... >For me, the real reason is that I now hate the latest 3.x after seeing >the improvements. It is near to junk, IMHO. ... >Several machine of mine had gone instable while moving from 3.[01] to >3.4-stable and I suspected hardware trouble. I didn't debug it because >I didn't want to mess with 3.x anymore. Now after upgrading to 4.x the >same machines are rock-stable again. It is my impression that the 3.x >branch lost the required testing when the core committers moved to >4.0-current. Higher releases of 3.x are just not polished/tested >enough anymore, beside the undoubted concrete bug fixes. ... >Opinions? > >Martin Story of DOS. Some people use DOS3.1 some others DOS5.0; anyone remember the 4.0? The 4.0 of DOS was the most ugly system ever seen at all. Bugs like a bee-swarm. Maybe the 3 branch is not the more stable branch of FreeBSD. If a 4.0 current is better... I use now at home the 3.4 -stable without *any* problem (I thing the best system I ever had). Maybe under hard working can give something bad. Maybe it can be a good thing if the core development gives to people a chart of the more well response branch. Not as absolute. Just the "suggested by the team" releases for have the best from FreeBSD. For professionals that count on it. Regards, Fabrizio To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message