From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 25 18:02:59 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F2795F for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 18:02:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tomek.cedro@gmail.com) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FAA08FC0A for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 18:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so9852448lah.3 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:02:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tKTpWAqBjqyukSN2wRPu/Dtj0ia5TemibulxIfRnKvM=; b=GZUW5QmK67+TL7VZzo1Ov0pfpvu0+P/rK3dpaUqQWGIenjga2IZI8Vm8HYxVsYFrBJ yD/65yxpo9JmSk0J1DZv4wD8e91Rm2knmgqmbWsFmQgb3v+AvnHm359NVGeGxQmVaqeQ mMZBLFIJfAIpFMYK2fTtV2jHLPWh0xbnvnpZc1uIm3WUH5NjkfIl9UyAD7LuLk8Ex0jq rB6Y7dMJXylgXvUQMgULHKOzreRmBIBE7f882j09IXL/JbCkt/2H2pAhCmeer0B+IIpT VnTTfUFLRu4EdCYBlUubObt0Xp9TZOq/H/OEi+IyS/9JsTcbKhnSBJbll8yHJ29qZX0y oHMw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.103 with SMTP id gl7mr23051535lab.10.1356458577823; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:02:57 -0800 (PST) Sender: tomek.cedro@gmail.com Received: by 10.114.11.165 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:02:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121225151532.GA1404@faust.sbb.rs> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:02:57 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: DkO_9gQS_iVYRN2pw96SWC8cdd4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 9.1 minimal ram requirements From: CeDeROM To: kpaasial@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 18:02:59 -0000 On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Kimmo Paasiala 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