Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:02:57 +0100 From: CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl> To: kpaasial@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 9.1 minimal ram requirements Message-ID: <CAFYkXjnzvRweE2oga=VZgBGLBjK-SQM%2BsniOLD9A6=-BbS%2B-Yw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFYkXjk8LgrYAm6iTtiAkrHKWcGDFij-7H9j1dgj305KemaOhw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20121225151532.GA1404@faust.sbb.rs> <CAFYkXjk8LgrYAm6iTtiAkrHKWcGDFij-7H9j1dgj305KemaOhw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> wrote: > If it works for 99.99% percent of the users and fails for the > remaining miniscule percentage because they have a very peculiar > hardware, very small amount of ram etc, should the release called > buggy and unstable? I really don't think so. Hey hey :-) Its rather a matter of organization, not to rush towards a release (see "do we get 9.1 before christmas"), if there are known issues (see security, etc). I also started to use RC myself as I found some stuff suprising on 9.0. But when I consider someone to use FreeBSD while there are release made before release, or rarely used stuff added by default that takes 1000% of standard kernel RAM usage, or similar - this does not look serious, this makes people think "i will use linux, things like this happens there all the time but i have more drivers", etc, etc. Even for FreeBSD enhousiast it is hard to discuss with people on better organization of FreeBSD over Linux in that case. From what I read there are people working hard to make a release, but we should not rush them at cost of quality. I am still with FreeBSD and I really like it more than Linux, this is why I think quality is more important than bleeding-edge here :-) Best regards :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFYkXjnzvRweE2oga=VZgBGLBjK-SQM%2BsniOLD9A6=-BbS%2B-Yw>