From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 30 3:24:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from knight.cons.org (knight.cons.org [194.233.237.86]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF79A37B612 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 03:24:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cracauer@knight.cons.org) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01827; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:23:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:23:56 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: David Holloway Cc: Martin Cracauer , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD VS BDS Message-ID: <20000330132355.A1815@cons.org> References: <20000330121644.B1022@cons.org> <200003301119.DAA14184@papermill.wrs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200003301119.DAA14184@papermill.wrs.com>; from davidhol@windriver.com on Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:19:31AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In <200003301119.DAA14184@papermill.wrs.com>, David Holloway wrote: > Oh I completely disagree. > Many serious orgnanizations and people concerned > with stability work with 3.x and plan on sticking with > 3.x until many of the serious changes to 4.0 have proven > themselves. > > The gcc (2.9.x -- 3.x) compiler for example, has only just recently become > as rock solid as the standard gcc 2.7.2.3 for freebsd 3.x Um, yes, I would also like the compiler do move a little more conservativly, and there is some hardware that doesn't work in 4.x, but other than that I don't like 3.4-STABLE and don't think it is wise to update on older 3.x release to it due to stability. See the discussion on -stable and let us not get into the same flamewar here. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message