From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Apr 9 14:32:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from arl-img-9.compuserve.com (arl-img-9.compuserve.com [149.174.217.139]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973D714CB4 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:52:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Malcolm_Boff@compuserve.com) Received: (from root@localhost) by arl-img-9.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) id LAA06309 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:12:41 -0400 From: MALCOLM BOFF Subject: Re: Debug kernel by default To: freebsd-questions Message-ID: <199904091114_MC2-7132-89B6@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I cannot really believe that this is being discussed in a serious way as a future proposal. While I accept that bugs in the kernel are notoriously difficult to locate I cannot accept that the majority of users of FreeBSD really want to have this imposed on them. I think that this will most certainly give potential business users the view that the product is in some way *wonky* and to be steered well clear of. What other version of UN*X is shipped with such a feature ! Would you buy it if it did ?? I am beginning to wonder where FreeBSD is actually going as a project as some of the things that have been done on the 3.1 release seem to be moving away from a vein whereby an "upgrade" becomes the norm and not an "install" as now seems to be more the case. Perhaps the leaders of the project should = perhaps spend a little more time looking at "questions" for users who have had or are having problems with 3.1 or even poll us with what they intend to do next so at least we provide some input. Malcolm G. Boff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message